DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

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.

---

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.

Yes, we define what the word evidence means.
We have the authority to do this because we all live in and share a common reality.

A flat earther can attempt to provide evidence that the earth is flat. We already have actual mountains of evidence to prove otherwise. They would need to demonstrate what they claim is true. So far, they cannot.

Through science we have already demonstrated that it is sphere like and exists in three dimensions. And it is not flat.

I can define what an apple is and determine if something is an apple or not.
I can do this through testing, observation and the gathering of evidence. My tests and methods can be repeated for accuracy and truth.

In other words I can demonstrate what I believe to be true.

Those who believe a god exists cannot or have not been able to do this.

Why is your definition better than the next person's?  You either need to validate yourself as an authority or use a source that has already been validated (encyclopedia, dictionary, journal, etc...).  If not, then it would be just as easy to accept a random definition of someone else over yours. 

Although I agree with you that the flat earther claims are nonsense, your argument doesn't refute them because of the nature of their claims.  It allows for mountains, but assumes a foundation that is "flat" rather than spherical.  You can put a mountain on that flatness, and it doesn't change the assumption.

The rest of what you've stated doesn't hold any weight beyond yourself.  I don't know what you believe, so no point in trying to validate or invalidate it.   You can't speak for those who believe in God (or gods) and you aren't a determining factor for what evidence they might have viewed.  In other words, your view in nothing more than an opinion, which may or may not be accepted by others, but it's not a testable conclusion.