It seems as if you're smuggling in the notion of "empirical fact" without really giving a rip as to the underlying science that might tend to confirm or disconfirm said empirical fact.
Whether the underlying science may or may not confirm or disconfirm that alleged empirical fact is not in play here. The relevant fact of the matter is that the evidence necessary to confirm or disconfirm is beyond the scope of present genetic analysis.
Your position seems to be that it, in fact, did happen. Period.
I am convinced that it did, yes.
Genetic probabilities are not at all germane to your sure knowledge.
Correct. They are not germain, within my paradigm. They are also not philosophically germain, as the
probability of that which is in question does not answer the question as to what
actually did or did not occur.
And since we cannot conclusively determine that it didn't happen, and since you already believe that it did happen, you're not interested in objective evidence that might tend to erode your subjective confidence.
No. There is no definitive empirical evidence that would predispose such erosion.
You're apparently punting to a spiritual witness here without regard to objective evidence.
What objective evidence? The generic science cannot tell us anything about Lehi, period. The dog has died. The disproof of the Book of Mormon is, again, beyond the critics reach.
And the DNA evidence is rather definitionally, and in a very fundamental sense, not a priori.
Correct, DNA evidence is not a priori. However, one's interpretation of the evidence may very certainly carry a priori assumptions that are a matter of world view and philosophical assumption.
Rather your apparent disregard for the objective evidence is a priori, unless you're counting a personal, spiritual witness of Book of Mormon as prior experiential evidence that invalidates publicly-accessible objective evidence, which I suspect you are.
The witness is evidence-nay-proof. Oh, but of course, it isn't publically accessible; its not accessible to independent observers.
In any case, the witness isn't invalidating anything as there is nothing to invalidate. The science is out on Lehi.
So, who's really arguing in an a priori manner here?
Revelation isn't a priori knowledge. It is direct and experienced knowledge. It is not independent of experience but
knowledge experienced.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
- Thomas S. Monson