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

Con is still using determinism to refute YEC, yet claims that somehow determinism doesn't apply to the brain or anything else he personally thinks it won't apply to! How is that possible? The two things are in contradiction. Evolution relies on determinism, but free-will believers attack determinism, so they are also attacking evolution. C1) Here we have Con arguing that it is reasonable to assume that determinism is true in all types of untested conditions to conclude that YEC is false, yet Con does not believe it is reasonable to assume that determinism is true in tested conditions for the brain? How irrational. If the decay rates change just a little bit now who knows how much they could've changed in the past? The answer is no one knows, because there's no way to empirically test. As for the soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils, it is still controversial if the iron is a sufficient explanation. The article says "Dinosaurs' iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous" - http://www.livescience.com... The reason why it says "may explain" is because you would still have to make all types of untested assumptions to conclude that iron is a good enough explanation. The hypothesis that the "dinosaur fossil is younger than what the radiometric calculation shows" would be just as valid of a hypothesis that "iron-rich blood somehow preserved soft tissue for 68 million years". In reality there's no way to experimentally verify the actual age of the fossil, the only way would be if you had a time machine or something like that. C2) a. Con's argument here is nonsensical...if dualism is true then this would mean all of modern science is wrong in some way....right now in modern science there is no dualism. How can Con be willing to believe that consciousness cannot be explained in materialistic terms (arguing against determinism and science in general) but then conclude that YEC is false because determinism is true in all types of untested conditions? Con then claims that this would only mean that certain aspects of science is wrong, but this isn't true, it would mean every aspect of science is wrong in some way since everything in science tells us that there is no free-will. Con says it would mean that "there are certain elements of the universe which science cannot explain due to its materialist assumptions"....which could mean anything for evolution, since evolution relies on determinism which Con has attacked. Con claims that chemical reactions affecting a person's brain doesn't mean much, but in reality chemical reactions affecting and changing consciousness is direct evidence that consciousness must be material or is at least affected by material things. We know with 100% certainty that drugs and chemical reactions change our consciousness. This is something that we know here and now to be true through direct observation, not like a speculative belief, yet Con denies it matters and is willing to assume that determinism is true in all types of untested conditions to refute YEC and willing to accept iron-rich blood as a sufficient explanation (relying on many untested assumptions). So why does Con find YEC to be irrational since he is willing to believe that all of modern science is fatally wrong in someway? b. Con uses a straw man, what I actually claimed was that non-determinism by itself doesn't support free-will, it would be just like saying "someone who always has an uncontrollable spontaneous brain disorder has free-will, their decisions are non-deterministic". What free-will has to do with is control. Nothing in modern science tells us that humans can control any of their decisions. Con uses the wave-function collapse as evidence, which is highly popular in pseudo-scientific circles, but there are many issues with this claim: - The alleged "collapse" occurs with non-conscious measuring devices as well, not just conscious observers, this means it has nothing to do with consciousness - The double-slit experiment doesn't tell us that humans can control how they affect the collapse - Many interpretations of the double-slit experiment don't involve any collapse, like the many-worlds interpretation - If somehow it's true that consciousness "causes" the collapse, this would mean that all of modern science is wrong in some way, which would most certainly affect evolution c. Well here are the sources (for the three experiments, Libet's, TMS, RT): - Soon, Chun Siong; Brass, Marcel; Heinze, Hans-Jochen; Haynes, John-Dylan (2008). "Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain". Nature Neuroscience 11 (5): 543"5 - K"hn, Simone; Brass, Marcel (2009). "Retrospective construction of the judgement of free choice". Consciousness and Cognition 18 (1): 12"21. - Vincent Walsh (2005). Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: A Neurochronometrics of Mind. Mit Press. Con believes that Libet's experiment doesn't contradict free-will, which is plain delusional. Con claims that the "faculty of consciousness can still play a role in making the initial decision" which of course is a "belief without evidence", or actually a "belief in contradiction to evidence". What Libet's experiment shows us is that the decision is first made in the unconscious prior to humans feeling as if they chose, this directly negates free-will and matches the hypothesis that "humans feel inside that they can chose when in reality we always uncontrollably act". The timing error has been eliminated as a possibility since Libet's experiment has been replicated with up to 10 seconds (making a timing error impossible). Con then cites the fact that Libet himself believed in the "free won't" idea, however almost every neuroscientist has rejected Libet's "free won't" idea since "free won't" can only exist if somehow all of modern science is wrong. Neuroscientists argue that the decision to veto is also triggered unconsciously (K"hn, Simone; Brass, Marcel (2009). "Retrospective construction of the judgement of free choice"). Con then talks about non-determinism, but the evidence refuting YEC relies on determinism being true in all types of untested conditions. How can Con believe that non-deterministic effects WOULD (not even could) apply to something as large as neurons, but then conclude that YEC is false because determinism is true for something as extremely small as a collection of atoms? C3) I called Con delusional because his statements contradict each other (concluding that YEC is false because determinism is true, but free-will exists because determinism is false). The methodology I'm using to objectively measure "irrationality" is the amount of concrete direct scientific evidence contradicting a claim. The scientific evidence refuting free-will is based upon direct concrete scientific evidence we have here and how, that we know to be true: - RT, Libet, TMS experiments - Observation that drugs and chemical reactions alter consciousness - No model in physics allows for free-will - Every field in modern science matches into the hypothesis that "humans feel inside that they can chose when in reality they always uncontrollably act" (biology, chemistry, physics, psychology, neuroscience, etc...) The scientific evidence refuting YEC: - Relies on calculations and inferences that assume that determinism is true in all types of untested conditions The scientific evidence refuting YEC isn't nearly as concrete as the evidence refuting free-will since the evidence refuting free-will is based upon direct observations we have here and now whereas the evidence refuting YEC relies on many many untested assumptions. We know with 100% certainty that free-will is non-existent in most conditions, this is because conclusions drawn from repeatable experiments can never be overturned, just improved in accuracy. What this means is if somehow free-will does exist it would have to be an extremely small tiny degree, indistinguishable from free-will not existing at all. Conclusion: - Con finds it rational to assume that determinism is true all types of untested conditions to refute YEC, yet claims that free-will exists because determinism is false - Con finds it rational to believe in dualism, which is equivalent to believing that all of modern science is wrong in some way, but irrational to deny the evidence refuting YEC which relies on many untested assumptions - Con finds it rational to deny the evidence refuting free-will, but irrational to deny the evidence refuting YEC - Con finds it rational to accept that soft tissue could survive for 68 million years in a dinosaur fossil (relying on many untested assumptions) but not rational to believe that free-will is non-existent based on tested assumptions we have here and now - Con finds it rational to believe that all of modern science is wrong in some way, but not rational to deny the evidence refuting YEC - Free-will is a "belief in contradiction to evidence" not a "belief without evidence" In conclusion we can see that believing in free-will is more irrational than believing in the evidence refuting YEC because the scientific evidence refuting free-will is more objective and concrete than the evidence refuting YEC. Furthermore the evidence refuting YEC relies on assuming that determinism is true in many untested conditions but free-will believers attack determinism in tested conditions thereby also attacking the evidence refuting YEC! Furthermore the evidence telling us that there is no free-will is based on direct observations and tested assumptions, the evidence refuting YEC relies on many untested assumptions. If we use direct scientific evidence as the methodology for measuring irrationality we can be 100% certain that believing in free-will is MORE irrational than denying the evidence refuting YEC