Free-will is a more irrational belief than young Earth Creationism

Thanks to itsnobody for the debate. It's been fun. I'll just use this round address Pro's relevant points from each contention. C1) -- Pro ignores my explanation of how neither of the free will models I have presented deny that determinism holds true on large scales. -- Pro has not given us sufficient reason to believe that rates of radioactive decay have changed significantly over the years; seeing that the theory explaining them indicates that they should stay constant, Pro has the BOP to do so, and he has failed. -- The use of subjunctive language in presenting theories is commonplace within the scientific community, so pointing that out does not refute the theory. Even if YEC and the iron explanation are "equally valid", we should prefer the iron explanation because it is more consistent with other lines of evidence against a young Earth. Speaking of which, Pro has yet to address all the other evidence against YEC, or the unwarranted assumptions of God's existence and Biblical authority. Pro has flatly lost this contention; YEC has been conclusively refuted, and thus Pro must do the same for free will. C2) A. -- Pro ignores my explanation of how Substance Dualism does not contradict the soundness of science or determinism. A. -- Substance Dualism does allow for consciousness to be "affected by material things". Mind and matter *do* interact, under a dualistic view. B. -- Pro is correct in stating that conscious observation is not the only thing which can cause wave function collapse. However, this is irrelevant; the general rule is that *any form of interaction* with the system causes collapse. Since conscious observation seems to be a viable form of "interaction", it is only reasonable to believe that humans can exert some degree of control over the electric signals in their brains (i. e. have free will). B. -- Pro states that some interpretations of quantum mechanics do not involve wave function collapse at all, but he doesn't give us any reason to prefer those interpretations. Occam's Razor resoundingly rejects the Many-Worlds interpretation because it assumes the existence of an infinite number of universes outside of our own for no other reason other than that the MWI requires it. B. -- Pro does not explain how consciousness-caused collapse results in all of modern science being wrong. .. C. -- Libet's experiment only shows that the physical brain does not become aware of a decision being made until afterwards; it does nothing to explain how those decisions are initially made. Libet's experiment does not refute the substance dualism model of free will. C. -- Pro simply says "scientists agree that 'free won't' doesn't exist", and cites a random book to support that. This is not sufficient evidence for his claim. At the *very* least, he must provide some sort of quotation from the book to demonstrate that it actually does say what he is claiming that it says. I have put forth two justifications of free will's existence-- Substance Dualism and Indeterminism. Pro has failed to refute either one, thus leaving us with plenty of rational basis to believe in free will. The resolution is resoundingly negated. C3) Pro's response here is very simple-- that he is "objectively measuring irrationality" via a preponderance of scientific evidence. However, this metric is inherently flawed, as it implies that nothing can be rational unless it is derived from the scientific method. Seeing that the scientific method is verificationist in nature, and that verificationism is famously flawed due to the paradox associated with it (i. e. the central premise of verificationism itself cannot be affirmed via verificationism), we cannot accept Pro's metric; the scientific method is not an objective measure of rationality. My kritik stands, and the resolution is further negated.