DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

At work.

If terms of forming a conclusion, it can be subjective (speaking with credentials, testimony, interpretation) or objective.  In application, there would be more focus on objective because we're looking for a specific result (following a recipe for a cake).

So.... that's a 'No' then?

So... if I use the word 'Evidence' in a sentence, structured in such a way as to be effectively a noun, it is describing something else. This something else to which the extra label of 'Evidence' has been applied is objective.

Yes?

But that doesn't change the nature of the evidence.  It just changes the nature of how you are describing it.  But for the sake of friendly discussion, can you provide a simple example?  I think it may be better to go that route to put it into perspective.  Feel free to disagree, but it would still be appreciated. Thanks.

---

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.

In part, but not in whole.

First, by what authority/credentials are you defining something (evidence)?  That's as bad as accepting people saying the "earth is flat."  It's how they are describing something.  In their mind, somehow they may have come to that conclusion based on their definition that it is flat.  Yet you are doing the same thing with the word "evidence."  You are using your interpretation to validate yourself as a determining factor who can not only define "evidence", but determine it as well.

Forensic tests are fallible.  If someone was there and claimed they witnessed something else and that the crime scene was altered, would you consider their account as evidence towards the case?  Maybe there are ten witnesses.  They say the same thing.  Maybe they made it up and are part of the crime.  Maybe they witnessed a cover up.  All would need to be weighed on their own merit.  If you were on a jury, what would you conclude?  Evidence based on personal testimony of ten people or a forensic test?  If there were 20 people on a jury, do you think there would be potential for any of them to come to a different conclusion?  If so, why?

Although true in part, your statement is self-defeating because it does exactly what you are trying to invalidate.