"The reason I don't accept the Theory of Evolution is because I cannot actually verify any of it since it happened outside of common experience."
So you only accept things as true if you have personally experienced it? Do you believe it is possible for an asteroid to hit the Earth and create a mass extinction like it did at the end of the Cretaceous with the dinosaurs, or do you think that it isn't possible because you have never personally experienced a large mass extinction causing asteroid impact?
Your statement "like it did at the end of the Cretaceous with the dinosaurs" is an example of bias. There is no way for you to verify this claim (it is even disputed in theoretic science) yet you seem to regard it as "fact": this is generally one of the problems, many like you in the field, consumed with bias, and speaking theoretic as fact. This is a prime example of why I do not accept the Theory of Evolution. There is no way to determine how deep this bias runs, and as such the entire enterprise is contaminated causing all theory to become highly questionable.
However, I would regard your hypothesis as "possible" in the same way I would regard "aliens crashed a saucer" as "possible" or "the cosmos is 6,000 years old" as "possible" or "elves carry raindrops down in magic handkerchiefs" as "possible": yet all without meaningful support, as are all untested hypotheses.
Do you believe physicists and chemists when they show models of the structures of molecules, or reject it since you can't personally see the actual individual molecules?
I do not accept the models of the structure of molecules; nor of any atomic or subatomic particles.
I posit that you do this with many other things in your life (like going to the doctor when sick or an accountant when tax time rolls around or a mechanic when your car is in need of repair, etc), so why is it hard for you to accept a scientists opinion on evolution but not on another theory you do accept? (like gravity or the Periodic table, etc)
I don't go to the doctor, pay no taxes and repair my own car. But you are confusing hypotheses with facts. Gravity is a fact and a theory. I accept the fact, as I witness it myself; I do not accept the theory. The periodic table is a categorizing which is true by self-definition much like any categorizing is done. A hypothesis is not the same as these things; but is a speculation without verifiable evidence to be evaluated with a specific procedure.
"I am fully experienced with the abysmally deficient ability of men to reason with any basic form of competency, and am fully aware that bias runs rampant through all investigation. Note that this is not to say that no man can reason competently, or that all men are consumed with bias: but that both of these are a consuming disease in all fields of investigation; thus drowning out any men who may be unbiased and competent."
Does this mean that you believe that you and your reasoning are better and more competent and free of biases when compared with that of a scientist's with respect to theory of evolution?
It's not possible for me to evaluate the hypothesis; I don't have access to the resources required. I trust my own abilities to reason correctly, but not others, unless demonstrated to be reliable in a meaningful manner. Even then, I would always evaluate their hypotheses and evidences before accepting any legitimacy of model.
This is an excellent question, and the crux of why I reject all forms of theoretic science; there is no objective way to determine any of these things, therefore all belief in all theoretic science is based solely on relative subjective perception of the investigator. Add into this that no approximation in any of these fields has any meaningful substance to contribute to mankind, and all theoretical science becomes both impossible to verify in any meaningful way, and even useless in such verification."
There is "no objective way to determine any of these things" is quite a bold statement. How did you determine that this statement is objectively true?
Self-experience.
(also, you seem to have completely skipped my question about where you get your source information from)
Source information for?
"I am willing only to say of all theoretic models "It is possible" but in the end "I neither know nor care": note this is in relation to all such theoretic models, secular or otherwise: I do not accept "young earth/old earth creationism theory" for the same reasons. I view all debate on such subjects no different than the proverbial tale full of sound and fury; signifying nothing."
Curious. So you reject "theoretic models" because they can't be (in your mind) verified? So you don't accept the model of the atom or models of molecules or models of the solar system of models of the Earth? I mean, every map you have ever used is a model of the Earth in essence. The way the map is constructed is based on a theoretical scientific framework. So why does a model that tells you how to get from point A to point B become valid, but a scientific model on the diversity and relationships among living and fossil taxa is invalid?
The veracity of the map is able to be verified. It is a representation of the present, and not the distant past. I accept that men are able to competently see what is in front of their eyes in the present. No reasoning is involved, and bias is impossible. It is not man's ability to use his senses in the present that I call into question; it is man's ability to competently reason (and without bias) concerning things that cannot be reproduced and which happen/ed outside of common experience.
As well, I draw a clear distinction between theoretic science, and, applied science. Rigorous repetition in a laboratory environment is a good way to strip away incompetent reasoning and emotional bias which are free to run rampant outside of the ability to rigorously repeat; as someone once said, "Science without contact with the laboratory is an enterprise likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture" (though my acceptance of even this rigorous pursuit will be on a case by case basis but has a chance of acceptance)
