DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Rahn127]

We tend to care if our beliefs are true or not.
In the words of Matt Dillahunty "I want to have as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible."

We can do that by having justifications for our beliefs..
And that justification comes in the form of evidence.

I think that is a fair statement, but how can you be the determining factor of someone else's evidence?  Furthermore, wondering how you can generalize that notion to a whole group without somehow invalidating their position, or even the group as a whole.  What makes your interpretation better than theirs?  In which case you just end up with an infinite round-n-round.

A: My information is correct and yours isn't.
B: No you are wrong, my information is correct.
A: No, you are wrong about me. My evidence is better.
B. Wrong again, and everybody who thinks like you is wrong.

Infinite nonsense because nothing to qualify or disqualify.

If you believe I don't understand what "words" mean, them maybe specify those words, in addition to what you believe they mean or some source.  This not only helps your case, but it gives me a chance to respond.  Thus we have good dialogue and it's easier to reach a logical conclusion.

I personally am not the determining factor for someone else's evidence. I and others however are the determining factor for what can be called evidence.
I'll start with the word evidence. I don't think you understand what this word means because you use it as if it means opinion. It does not.

Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
From that definition, we are using facts about the world we live in. We all share a common reality. It is this fact that I can use to invalidate someone's position or an entire group who hold a particular position. There are those who believe the earth is flat. I can use facts about the world we live in to invalidate their position.

It doesn't matter how many people believe something. If it's wrong, it's wrong. And that can be demonstrated through the use of facts about this common reality we share.

So it's not a case of me interpreting the evidence a certain way. It's the facts of the evidence and the ability to demonstrate those facts.

If a murder weapon is found with blood on it. We can test that blood and through DNA analysis, determine if it matches, with some degree of certainty, of that of the person who was killed with that weapon. There are many other forensic tests to back up this initial finding.

If an ordinary citizen claims that he discovered another murder weapon, other officers will attempt to gather that weapon and get it tested for blood samples.
When questioned about the weapon, the citizen says the weapon is invisible, intangible and it's everywhere he looks.

There is no evidence to be gathered. All we have is an irrational claim of something that cannot be verified.