again all evidence says it doesn't happen

I disagree 100%, but I'll be sure to take up Joecoder or r/creation if they're interested :).

This assumption just doesn't make any sense to me.

I'd need to know why to address your concern. I don't think it's hard to recognize that pattern recognition is advantageous for survival, so I imagine the only assumption that doesn't make sense is the fact that we find certain patterns appealing and not others. But if you consider that many things we find appealing are also beneficial to us, it doesn't (to me) seem unreasonable to presume that finding things good for us (in a physical sense) as appealing could be developed from natural causes.

A simple free will argument: 1) If you do not have free will then you can not choose to accept anything. 2) You can choose to accept or reject premise (1) 3) Therefore, you have freewill.

"Choose" is a loaded term here. If it's demonstrated to me that 1+1 = 2, I have no power to "choose" that premise, it is accepted by logical axioms. Neither can I choose to be reasonable. Any action undertaken in a conscious manner appeals to reason in some direct or indirect way. While some premises are far more complex in that they depend on more variables, they are still accepted or rejected on assessing each variable reasonably. It's just an illusion.

If I am totally determined to accept determinism then there is no way for holding that belief to be true.

I don't quite follow what this is saying. If I am convinced of something because it is most reasonable, then I am, in fact, capable of utilizing reason to dispute other claims.