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

Thanks, Pro.I'll be using this round to both put forth my opening argument and rebut Pro's case.1. YEC has been conclusively refutedThere are many highly compelling lines of evidence that make it almost impossible for the Earth to have been created "between 5700 and 10000 years ago". My opponent already seems to concede this, however, so it isn't really worth spending too much time on this. Basically, several lines of evidence, such as radiometric dating [1], amino acid dating [2], noticing the massive amounts of time it would have taken for erosion to create natural features such as the Grand Canyon [3], observing ice layering in glaciers [4], and calculating how incredibly long it would have taken for Continental Drift to have brought the continents to where they currently are [5]. Pro seems to be arguing that all of these refutations of YEC are all based in the supposedly fallacious assumption that the measured factors (e.g. radioactive decay, speed of continental drift, and ice formation patterns) have remained constant over billions of years. However, it really isn't unreasonable at all to assume so-- theoretically, it makes very little sense that they would fluctuate significantly, and we have found no signs of such fluctuations having occurred historically; thus, it is really Pro's burden to demonstrate why we should doubt that such factors are constant. And besides all the scientific evidence against it, let's not forget that the base assumption of YEC-- that God exists -- is wholly unsubstantiated. Belief in YEC is completely and utterly irrational; the only way for Pro to successfully affirm the resolution is prove that free will is even *more* irrational than YEC, which practically requires showing that it is logically impossible.2. Free will most likely existsI will attempt to affirm the existence of free will within my response to Pro's case against it. But first, let's demonstrate that science abjectly fails to compellingly explain consciousness in naturalistic terms:"What is physical matter, the brain, composed of? Grey tissue. Neuron firing. Stimulation of C-fibers. Shifting in voltage. Chemicals releasing. But what is "mind"? The self. Sensations. What something feels like. Beliefs. Desires. Thoughts.... Since we are justified in making the inference that a rabbit and a pouch of chew are not the same thing, we are also justified in making the inference that neural patterns and what I feel... are different things. We can understand everything there is to know about neuron firing patterns, but this won't tell us what something actually smells like to that person. So if the C-fiber stimulation and the pain I feel when I step on a lego were the exact same thing then they wouldn't be such completely dissimilar things. But you could scan my brain however many times you like, identify neurons, but you will never 'feel' my pain. In other words, mind is inherently first-person, while matter is inherently third-person. They"re completely dissimilar. My opponent isn't comparing apples to oranges. He"s saying apples just are oranges." [6].It seems highly implausible that consciousness is merely a deterministic function of the brain; it is really Pro's burden of proof to show us that consciousness can actually be explained in materialistic terms. Besides all the bare assertions that science "absolutely" refutes free will, Pro makes two attempts at doing this-- he states that the brain is governed by deterministic processes and that drugs can be used to alter how the brain functions. However, neither of those statements really contradict the existence of free will; if consciousness is a separate entity from the brain, then how the brain functions is irrelevant. Consciousness and the brain may be intertwined, but that by no means implies that they are one and the same. And since consciousness has not been shown to be governed by deterministic processes, free will can still exist. Besides that, the brain is not necessarily governed by deterministic processes. Quantum effects blatantly violate determinism, being highly probabilistic in nature, and yet they are largely responsible for the workings of the brain; since neurons operate by transmitting electrical signals among each other, and since electrons are completely subject to quantum indeterminism, the logical conclusion is that the brain's workings as a whole are also subject to indeterminism. Since determinism doesn't hold true (within the brain, at least), there is still plenty of room for free will to exist (because it can no longer be said that every decision we make is an inevitable result of deterministic processes within the brain). Thus, the main premise of Pro's case against free will is refuted. A couple other miscellaneous issues... 1) simply citing Liber's experiment cannot serve as an argument on its own; Pro must explain what exactly was proven by Liber's experiment if we are to accept it as evidence against free will... 2) Pro insists that evolution hinges on determinism holding true, but never actually explains why... 3) Pro also insists that the existence of time is dependent on determinism holding true, but this is only the case with A-Theory of time; B-Theory of time allows for indeterminism, which actually makes it preferable to A-Theory, since that allows it to be compatible with advances in the field of quantum mechanics. CONCLUSION: Belief in Young Earth Creationism has been shown to be entirely irrational, and Pro has not succeeded in showing that belief in free will is even close to that level of irrationality; rather, I have demonstrated that there is actually plenty of rational basis for belief in free will. It is prima facie obvious that consciousness functions separately from the physical brain, thus also allowing for free will (which is an essential element of consciousness) to exist independently of the brain. Moreover, the brain is not necessarily governed by determinism, due to the indeterministic laws of quantum physics, which leaves us more than enough room to reasonably believe in free will. The resolution is negated.Back to Pro![1] Chris Stassen (1996-2005)."The Age of the Earth" (TalkOrigins)[2] Michael D. Petraglia, Ravi Korisettar (1998). Early Human Behaviour in Global Context. Page 63[3] http://www.nytimes.com...;[4] Matt Brinkman (1995). "Ice Core Dating" (TalkOrigins)[5] http://education.nationalgeographic.com...[6] http://www.debate.org...[7] http://arxiv.org...