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

Well you're using a straw man argument, I'm not arguing exactly that young Earth Creationism is true, just that it's more rational than believing in free-will. I want the atheist-controlled media to attack free-will believers like how they've attacked Creationism. The reason why atheists and the media haven't attacked free-will believers is because there aren't any atheists that actually care about evidence, proof, or science. This is obvious. What a great threat the atheist community has been to science in de-valuing evidence. My basic argument is: Since the scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent is more objective and concrete than the evidence refuting young Earth Creationist arguments, the belief in free-will is more irrational. The scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent: - Repeatable observations and experiments we have here and now (RT Experiments, TMS experiments, Libet's experiment, the observation that drugs and chemicals change consciousness) - Everything, in every field of science (chemistry, physics, psychology, neuroscience, biology, etc...) tells us that free-will just doesn't exist So in order to believe in free-will you have to say that somehow EVERYTHING in science is wrong and all of the repeatable experiments are also wrong. The evidence refuting most young Earth Creationist arguments: - Isn't based on repeatable experiments and observations that we have here and now, but inferences and untested assumptions Take for instance, the dating of the Earth, it is based upon inferences and untested assumptions, assuming that the decay rate remains constant for billions of years (no way to test), then calculating numbers. The only way the dating of the Earth could be as concrete and objective as the evidence telling us that there's no free-will is if we had a time machine or something like that and directly observed the age of the Earth. The evidence telling us that there is no free-will doesn't rely on calculations and untested assumptions, it's based on things we directly observe and absolutely know to be true here and now. We absolutely know that in every single condition empirically tested free-will is shown to not exist (every experiment). We absolutely know that drugs and chemical reactions change consciousness (like if someone drinks lots of alcohol it changes their consciousness) We absolutely know that neurons function through electrochemical reactions We absolutely know that free-will doesn't fit into anything in science You don't have to really speculate anything, it's based on things we KNOW. So based on modern science, we can more certain that free-will is non-existent than we can be that young Earth Creationists are wrong. The reason why people act the way they do is not because "they chose to" but because of uncontrollable electrochemical reactions in their body and brain, there's no choosing going on, just the feeling of being responsible, the feeling that you could've done something else. People merely feel as if they can choose when in reality they always uncontrollably act, it is an illusion just like how humans can clearly see the Sun moving around the Earth. Recently in 2011 Libet's experiment has been replicated on the scale of a single neuron, further solidifying the evidence that there is no free-will. Another important thing to note is that evolution relies on and assumes that determinism is true, which many free-will believers have attacked...attacking determinism is also attacking evolution (since it relies on determinism). You can't measure time without assuming that determinism is true. Using the non-deterministic reasoning we would conclude that billions of years and a nanosecond would be indistinguishable from each other (siding more with young Earth Creationists, concluding that time cannot be accurately measured). If you can't measure time accurately then evolution would just fall apart. When you look at the evidence, the gaps young Earth Creationists point out are much bigger, more objective, and more valid concerns than the gaps that free-will believers point out. If non-determinism somehow applies to large-scale objects as many free-will believers assume this would mean that radiometric dating is wrong. Radiometric dating assumes that determinism is true for things as extremely small as a collection of atoms. It's already established that the decay rate of a single atom is indeed unpredictable, yet free-will believing atheists have an issue with people questioning whether or not the decay rate for a few atoms could change or become variable, yet they have no issue with people questioning whether or not neurons are deterministic? Most neurons are like more than 300,000 times larger than atoms (the axon of a motor neuron is like 3ft long), and free-will believers believe that non-deterministic effects can apply to it but not a small collection of atoms? In order for radiometric dating to work you have to assume that determinism is true for billions of years and that nothing could have significantly changed the decay rate. Just an example of how free-will believers are more irrational. In Conclusion: - The scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent is more objective than the evidence refuting young Earth Creationist arguments, so free-will is a more irrational belief - If the scientific evidence supporting evolution is enough to convince you (which relies on and assumes that determinism is true for billions of years), then the scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent should be MORE THAN enough to convince you - If the the scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent isn't enough to convince you, then the scientific evidence supporting evolution shouldn't be even close to close to enough to convince you When you look at evolution, it's very weak in comparison to the evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent, it's very weak in comparison to General Relativity and other things in science. It's just because of the media that people think otherwise. Physics doesn't tell us that it MUST be true that evolution occurred just as modern day biologists believe, but physics tells us that free-will MUST be non-existent. If free-will somehow does exist it would have to be an extremely tiny degree, so extremely tiny it would indistinguishable from free-will not existing at all. It would also mean that all of modern science is wrong in some way, which would most likely have implications for evolution. With free-will, we can see the true dishonest nature of the atheist, that they don't really care about evidence, they were just lying. "We assume that we have free will and that we make decisions, but we don't. Neurons do. We decide that this sum total driving us is a decision we have made for ourselves. But it is not." - Rodolfo Llinas, the giant in neuroscience It's not even really debatable, it's just normal science, so why hasn't the media come out to attack free-will believers like how they attack Creationists? It's simple, the media is biased and doesn't really care about evidence, science, or proof. The belief in free-will isn't only delusional, but harmful. It causes people to blame each other, hold grudges, and not forgive and forget. If you believe in free-will and think that "this person chose to do this, they could've done otherwise, but they chose to" then you would be more inclined to blame people, hold grudges, etc... On the other hand if you didn't believe in free-will and thought "the reason why this person is acting this is way is because of uncontrollable electrochemical reactions in their body and brain, not because they chose to" then it would be really easy to forgive and forget, not hold grudges, and see the true innocence in all beings. I hope that one day society as a whole can give up on the free-will delusion.