Does Absolute Truth exist?

Matt

I believe that Truth does in fact exist. I believe it is impossible to state that truth is relative without making an absolute statement. Though a simple discussion unfortunately convincing complex arguments are made that state otherwise.

 

Opponent

 

The problem with the question "does truth exist?" is that it can only be answered within a framework that assumes the existence of truth. If one says "truth exists", what they are really saying is "truly, truth exists", and when someone says "truth does not exist", what they are really saying is "truly, truth does not exist", or "truth has a truth-value of zero", a contradiction not just of terms but of logic. If this point is answered by saying, "how do I know that logic is true?", we can see that the disbeliever of truth has it all ahead of them: if one does not believe in truth, one does not believe in logic, and, of necessity, nothing can be believed. We must concede that truth exists if we are to do or think anything. The exact nature of this truth is another matter, but truth undoubtedly exists.

The only way my opponent can win this debate is if he can prove their is a fact that has been verified and it is complete. Meaning he has to prove that it is not relative to opinion or situation. He has to prove their is a truth that can apply to every single situation regardless. I will offer up some common misconceptions of truth to show my opponent this is impossible

"Everybody Breathes"
Not dead people, you have to be talking relative to the living.

"Everything is in the Universe"
It hasn't been proved, for all we know their might be a Heaven or Hell outside the Universe, this idea would depend on who you are talking too.

I challenge my opponent to come up with a single "absolute truth" that is not relative to the people or humans that agree with the truth. Essentially, a truth that will be universally accepted on by every little thing which would complete the ideas of a "Complete fact that has been verified". If I can find even one way to prove his truth wrong by showing a group of people that disagree or do not accept this fact, than it is not a complete truth.

Further more their is an extra burden on the Pro; if I do not accept a single one of his truths as a human myself than he has already loss as of right now, because he has a truth that is not accepted completely by all people, because I disagree .

So my opponent to win this debate, has to prove an absolute truth exists without me successfully refuting it and it has to be a truth that I am willing to accept, or else he has not proved that their is a truth that is not relative to a person.

 

Matt

 

I'd First like to thank my opponent for accepting this discussion. I hope I may address all proposed arguments to both my opponent and the peoples satisfaction.

I'd like to start off stating that we sub-consciously demand truth daily. Not always is the full truth given whether it be lack of information or present understanding, there is a desire in us to find it. I believe perceptions of truth are subjective but truth in itself is not. A simple absolute truth would be (and this is very simple). Today at least two people wore shoes to work today. Now this statement may seem like little to no thought was put into but it demonstrates two things. First, even though evidence is not provided with the statement it is accepted because logically speaking shoes are necessary for many job occupations. Second, this statement is absolutely true seeing how I witnessed at least two people where shoes to work today. Another absolute truth is the sun provides necessary raw energy for photosynthesis, this has been proven through science. We know that logic exists because we use logic to determine whether or not logic exists. It would be illogical to state that that a scientifucally testible process is only relatively true to those who decide to embrace it and false to those who simply dont believe. It is important to mention that truth is not an attitude. Truth is not how we know, truth is what we know. Besides the problem with self-contradiction, there are several other logical problems one must overcome to believe that there is no absolute or universal truths. One is that all humans have limited knowledge and finite minds and, therefore cannot logically make absolute negative statements. If there is no absolute truth , no standard of right and wrong than we are that we are accountable to, then we can never be sure of anything. People would be free to do whatever they want (murder, rape, steal, lie etc.) and no one could say those things would truly be wrong. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. The burden lies on my opponent to provide an argument for obvious evidence for the following absolute truth statements.

The outcome of absolute truth cannot be a lie.

This debate is written in a language the opponents can understand.

Energy can be transformed from one form to the other, but cannot be created or destroyed.

 

 

Opponent

 

What is absolute truth?
A: Absolute truth is something that is true regardless of the context (this definition is subject to change).

•For example we can say that "parallel lines never intersect", but this is only true in the context of Euclidian geometry. Even though it is a math-thing, it is not an absolute truth.
•Another example is "1+1=2", it is a bit more difficult to counter. The statement is true if '+' means "add two numbers", but it could also mean "concatenate", so the result would be "11".
•Try to prove that "1+1=2" without first defining '2' as the next integer after '1'; if you can't, then why not "1+1=3"? (for very large values of '1' :-)
Follow up:

As you can see, playing with math doesn't automatically make you right. The weakest link here is the fact that we use our language as a communication tool, and the language is filled with backdoor, kludges and other things that make our existence a bit difficult. Synonyms, homonym's, homophones - they add ambiguity to a world which has enough uncertainty of its own...

Sometimes we can use language to "prove" something; but the fact that a statement sounds nice in a human language, does not make it more credible. Consider the sentence "Absolute truth does not exist". Something cannot be true and false at the same time, but the problem with this sentence is that if it is true, it is false; sounds like a self-contradiction.

What's the catch? The catch is that if there is absolute truth, it does not necessarily mean that the sentence "Absolute truth does not exist" is one of those absolute truths. So, even if this nifty linguistic trick looks cool on paper, it does not make sense in the real world.

Absolute truth cannot be expressed in words
This will result in the projection of the concept upon our vocabulary, a process that implies the fact that some input information will be lost, therefore there is no guarantee that we will be able to reconstruct the original concept having read its description in words. Think of it as drawing a 3D object on a sheet of paper (you get the projection of 3D on 2D). The vocabulary can be limited, lacking words that represent certain concepts; moreover, words can make a sentence ambiguous.

Even if we use symbols, their definition can vary too (ex: '+' means "add" or "concatenate"; it means 'OR' if we're in the realm of Boolean algebra; while in the case of "Mary+John=Love" the '+' means something entirely different).

Once we accept the idea that words cannot be used to express absolute truth, the problem of "Absolute truth does not exist" is solved, and so is "1+1=2".

Therefore my opponent suggesting this topic for debate fails in turn his case fails.

 

Matt

 

It does not appear that my opponent wishes to refute the proposed absolute truths in my previous argument. I would agree that if one had no understanding of math and looked at the equation of 1+1 there would be a variety of possible incorrect answers. The response then could be that it is absolutely true that 1+1 does not always equal 2. Through understanding of basic math symbols and logic we are able to formulate answers that are in fact absolutely true. We know if one pencil is added to a box which contains only one other pencil in it, logically speaking there are now 2 pencils in the box which is a greater number of pencils than a box with only one pencil in it. I believe language is a tool of communication that describes  truth but it does not prove it. You say something cannot be true and false at the same time which I agree with. A contradicting statement does not validate that absolute truth does not exist. You can't logically argue that against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. Reality is absolute whether you feel like being cogent or not. I have placed in my previous discussion a few "real world" absolute truths. I urge my opponent to refute them in order to validate his argument.

My oppenent later forfieted this discussion

 

Answering Atheists 2

“Being an atheist does not require any faith, because it is impossible to 'believe' in nothing. When we are born, our minds are a blank slate. This state requires no effort to be in. The concept of god(s) are added later, at which point you require faith to take you away from your initial position of intellectual rest. Believing in something requires faith. Not believing in something requires nothing”.

Religion:  a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

When an atheist makes the absolute statement “There is no God” he/she would have to claim to know everything about the universe and having witnessed everything there is to be seen. I know there isn’t one (reasonable) atheist out there who would make such a claim however this is simply what they are stating when they announce that God absolutely does not exist. Simply because a child doe has no knowledge of airplanes when they are born has no bearing on the validity of whether or not airplanes exist.   The atheist must also propose a solution in which inanimate matter alone develops information. If you receive a fax from someone it is reasonable to believe that a chemical process allowed the ink to bond to paper but the information only comes from an informer. This information is packed in DNA in such an intricate fashion that even if given the allowed time chance simply doesn’t cut it. I believe the atheist demonstrates great faith to “believe” in the theory of evolution vs. creation.

Answering Atheists

The problem here is that the deist, errors in thinking that in discarding a god, one needs do so by having faith in something else. When I stopped believing in Santa as a child, I simply came to the conclusion that this entity did not exist because there was no evidence to the contrary. This is despite the fact that his image was everywhere during xmas season and many people continued to behave as if he were real. Therefore, I submit that I do not believe in a god that created the universe the same way he doesn't believe in an elf that delivers presents. Consequently, disbelief in this case is an act of reason, not faith.

Response

Id like to start off by saying that science and God cannot be proven 100%. It takes faith in both areas. Facts and theories can be presented on both sides but it narrows down to faith in the end. A person has faith in the law of gravity but cannot prove it 100% (because he/she has not seen everything rise and fall). I have not seen God but I have faith that He does in fact exist by evidence and how He reveals himself through creation. An Atheist puts faith in his decision when he decides whether to believe in an intelligent design or chance. Now you may say hold the phone turbo we have proof that evolution is clean cut evidence for the beginning of existence. I must first mention that in order for something to evolve is must already exist. So what was it that initiated the existence of the universe? Einstein contemporary, Arthur Eddington once said “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural”. We cannot say the universe began by natural causes because nothing existed there was no nature so whatever did cause a beginning must have been supernatural. If you look up supernatural in the dictionary you will find of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. In his book “The case for Faith” Lee Strobel writes “ The statistical odds of developing even the most basic living cell by chance are astronomical”. Walter Bradley also points out that, “it takes about 100 of the right amino acids lined up in the right manner to make one protein molecule. And that’s just the first step. Creating one protein molecule doesn’t mean you’ve created life. Now you have to bring together a collection of protein molecules-maybe 200 of them- with just the right functions to get one typical living cell. The mathematical odds of assembling a living organism are so astronomical that no body still believes that random chance accounts for the origin of life.” There is written code and message all over DNA, and these codes communicate with others to properly pass on genetic information to other cells. The chances of this happening by chance can be compared to tornado running through a junkyard and assembles a Boeing 747... A theist has faith that God began and maintains the universe just as an Atheist believes in no God and chooses to believe the material world is the only one. I ask you which takes more faith to believe chance or intelligent design. I urge you to use logic and reasoning and not emotion. Truth stands whether you believe in it or not.  

The Possibility of God vs Evolution

Matt

In a few previous debates I have had, one of the most unfortunate issues was keeping the discussion completely on the possibility of a Creator. I have debated a few atheists who were kind of "all over the place" wanting to debate topically on all subjects (Scripture, Jesus, controversies of the Bible, etc.) while what I was really looking for was an honest discussion of The possibility of a Creator (God) vs. The alternative's whether it be evolution or even aliens (yes I have had that proposed to me before). If one does not believe in a God then they will never believe in what the Bible has to say about Him. I personally believe that everyone is at the very least agnostic, reason being we that we have a very limited understanding of the universe that the possibility of a God still comes into play unless we have proven with evidence that there is no possible way He can exist. I am not sure where or how you would like to start off but I am looking forward to your responses.

Caroline

So basically I think you are saying you want a debate focused on evolution only. That is what I have been waiting for. I just don't understand how you can't look at the facts and evidence and go, okay these scientists have a pretty dang good point....

Matt

Well, I will start off by stating that I agree with you that scientist's who propose evolution as the means of how we came about do make strong points. Unfortunately that's where it stops. The way I have always looked at things is before a theory can only be considered sound or reasonable its premise must first be. I use to believe strongly that evolution was the best explanation for what we see today (I didn't want there to be a God). Over time through studying both in classes and on my own the weight was starting to shift towards the possibility of a Creator vs. chance. Many evolutionists look at Stanley Miller's Experiment for creating life by natural process the problem was it wasn't so natural. I am sure you are familiar with the experiment.

I have studied this experiment and even if given billions of years it is still dangerously flawed. Miller's construction of sending a bolt of electricity into this container filled with carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor excludes oxygen, why? Because oxygen will oxidize amino acids and destroy them. Even in an early earth if there were no atmosphere then ultraviolet rays would destroy the amino acids. You must also factor in hydrolysis which is the decomposition of a chemical compound by reaction with water. Now yes he did create some amino acids but it was only because he was able to suck them down into a chamber where the electric current couldn't fry them if they sat there. Where in the primitive earth would you find such a contraption? It would be like saying a bolt of electricity struck a river bank and made clay, and that clay had the texture and form of a brick, then saying that raw energy could create the empire state building. The few amino acids that were found were 50% racemic where 100% purity is essential. 99% of the compounds were toxic.

Before applying mathematics and probability to the origin of life, we need to consider seven parameters that will affect the formation of a single protein. First, there are over 300 different types of amino acids. However, only 20 different amino acids are used in life. This means, that in order to have life, the selection process for building proteins must be very discriminating. Second, each type of amino acid molecule comes in two shapes commonly referred to as right-handed and left-handed forms. Only left-handed amino acids are used in biological proteins; however, the natural tendency is for left- and right handed amino acid molecules to bond indiscriminately. Third, the various left-handed amino acids must bond in the correct order or the protein will not function properly. Fourth, if there was a pond of chemicals ("primordial soup"), it would have been diluted with many of the wrong types of amino acids and other chemicals available for bonding, making the proper amino acids no longer usable. This means there would have been fewer of the required amino acids used to build the biological protein. Fifth, amino acids require an energy source for bonding. Raw energy from the sun needs to be captured and converted into usable energy. Where did the energy converter come from? It would require energy to build this biological machine. However, before this energy converter can capture raw energy, it needs an energy source to build it, a catch-22 situation. Sixth, proteins without protection of the cell membrane would disintegrate in water (hydrolysis), disintegrate in an atmosphere containing oxygen and disintegrate due to ultraviolet rays of the sun if there was no oxygen present to form the protective ozone layer. Seventh, natural selection cannot be invoked at the pre-biotic level. The first living cell must be in place before natural selection can function. Considering all seven of these hurdles, how probable is it that a single protein that a single protein could have evolved from a pool of chemicals? Stanley Millers Experiment for some reason is still held as the most accepted means of how life began. Unfortunately it seems that this theory is being held on to not by science but by a materialistic worldview.  Here are

a few quotes from famous evolutionists and scientists.  It appears that though science is unbiased, many scientists on the other hand are.

"It doesn't matter if all the evidence supports intelligent design and contradicts naturalistic evolution, Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it's not naturalistic". -Dr. Scott Todd

"The only alternative to evolution is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true but is irrational."

-L.T. More

"Evolution is unproved and improvable; we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable".

-Sir Arthur Keith

"We find that while intelligent design arguments may be true, Intelligent Design is not science".

-U.S. Dist Judge John Jones

How can the truth be irrational and unscientific....?

Truth should be the objective in any search. The odds of mankind evolving from a "primordial soup" are astronomically improbable. As we search in further detail science is revealing just how complex we are, from the most basic of cells to man. God's fingerprint is all over the place. Laws come from a lawgiver, information comes from an informer, messages come from messengers, creation comes from a Creator. I understand it takes faith on both sides of the fence.

Caroline

I actually have no idea what the Stanley Miller Experiment is. I love science and everything, but I have just never heard of it before. I wikipedia'd it to get a little background info to understand what you were talking about. I think he didn't include oxygen in his experiment because there was little to no oxygen in the atmosphere at the time the earth came to existence 4.5 billion years ago.  And doesn't the bible say that the earth is like only 6,000 years old? There is a crap load of evidence to support otherwise. And if the bible isn't right on everything, what makes you believe in an almost more insane idea that humans appeared out of thin air and were talking to snakes. If this isn't meant to be taken "literally" why is it in there? It obviously is true, just like every single word in the bible (sarcastic). I think the idea of a mutated cell some 3.5 billion years ago that branched off into eukaroytes and what not which evolved into worms and jellyfish and fish which evolved into land animals and then the different kinds of species evolving like wildfire makes so much more sense than the other less factual route.

Matt

Even though I was hoping to keep this debate focused on the possibility of God over evolution I will respond to each of your proposed arguments in later discussions if need be. Like I said previously if you do not believe that God is truly the creator of the universe than it goes without saying you will not believe the truths about Him. You have a materialistic worldview so anything that presents itself as supernatural is prematurely looked at as illogical. Nature did not exist before the beginning of the universe, therefore a natural explanation is not logically possible for its origin. It must have been a supernatural (beyond nature) cause which brought the universe into existence.  I am not sure how familiar you are with abiogeneis; it's the theory that under proper conditions life can arise spontaneously from non living molecules. If abiogeneis is impossible (or extremely unlikely) than it would go without saying that naturalism is impossible. Darwin himself recognized the problems his theory faced when dealing with abiogeneis. Researchers and scientists know that some oxygen was present throughout primordial earth because it contained water vapor. Photo dissociation of water in the atmosphere produces oxygen. Also in the Precambrian geological strata we find many oxidized materials. Miller also used UV experiment but only a select wavelength to produce amino acids because he knew that other wavelengths would destroy amino acids, both wavelengths (chemical-destroying and chemical-building) exists in sunlight. The delicate amino acids readily break down under natural sunlight. The only reason why the chemicals (and toxic to life I might add) survived was because he built a vacuum to suck them immediately into a contraption where they were protected from the radiation. I don't want to go too far into detail because I am afraid it would take up too much necessary time. Unfortunately for evolutionists Miller's experiment was a lot of "intelligently designed" contraptions that still could not produce functional amino acids. Mutations are frequently observed in science and are observed to be harmful because it is a loss of information or damaged information and not increased information or an addition of traits. I do believe in variation between species because we see this not only in the natural environment but also in labs. Never has macroevolution taken place (major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the specie) in either labs or the natural environment. In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record presented difficulties for his theory. "By the theory of natural selection," he wrote, "all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the natural and domestic varieties of the same species at the present day." Thus in the past "the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great." But Darwin knew that the major animal groups, which modern biologists call "phyla" appeared fully formed in what were at the time the earliest known fossil-bearing rocks, deposited during a geological period known as the Cambrian. He considered this a "serious" difficulty for his theory, since "if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed. and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures, " And to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer".  So the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained”.  Gradual evolution also is unable to explain irreducibly complex organisms.  A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. As far as the age of the earth I am still studying the facts presented  but later I will put together my proposal  of evidence for a potentially young earth.  There are many things evolution cannot explain including morals which we can take on as well if you wish. I am looking forward to your responses and hope that the facts presented will remove some of  the skepticism between really knowing God .

Caroline

Maybe it would help you some to know some of my background. Both of my parents are christian, like yourself, and I was raised the same. When I was little, I went along with it because hey, if I wasn't good, I was going to spend eternity in hell. What 7 year old wants to do that? 

So I my parents had me take religious education classes every thursday and I can tell you they were not the most enjoyable thing. Then one day my we come home from  religious classes (also known as CCD) and my sister was like our teacher told us that the earth and everything on it was made in seven days. Then one student was like, how do you explain dinosaurs? At that small of an age I immediatly caught on to the idea that the things in the bible don't make sense. I started asking questions that my ccd teachers didn't know the answer to (like why would god make gay people if he hates them so much?) being a teacher and not knowing the answer to what you are teaching isn't a very well thought out plan. When I got older I started looking at the bible in new ways and was like what was this person smoking when they wrote this? Religion was being shoved down my throat and I did not like it. By the time I was old enough to be confirmed, I was an athiest, but my mom made me do it anyway. So yeah. That's basically why I don't believe and looking at science over the years has just been the way that makes the most sense to me. I think religion is complete bull. But to refute some of your things:

You said that abiogenesis is "extremely unlikely" that is not the same as impossible. Yeah it might be close but it is definatly not the same. Thinking about how long the universe has been around is mind blowing. And thinking of how long it must have been around before the big bang is to hard for me to comprehend. Which is why that in the however hundreds of billions or hundreds of trillions of years space has been around, the "extremely unlikely" becomes alot more likely. 

Science is saying that within billions of years, all it took was one single cell to have a slight mutation to be able to evolve into life as we know it today. Extremely unlikely would be an over exaggeration unless if it was a condensed time period, for instance one year. And not only did it only take one mutated cell, that doesn't mean that that cell was made and 10 minutes later it sprouted legs and started walking around. No. It took about a billion years for the next forms of life to become present in aquatic life.

And your saying all mutations are harmful and not useful? I'll admit that not all mutations are for the better good. For instance, my "genetic mutation" (as my awful science teacher called it) for me to be almost completely blind in one eye does not help me for the greater good. But going back in time mutations were what made natural selection possible. A mutated fish with a few extra bones in it's fin reprodoced to have desendants which reproduced making this feature a teeny bit more enhanced every time, until there was tiktaalik roseae. 

The half reptile, half fish. I don't know how you could get god to explain this for you, but that's the truth on how it happened. And of course Darwin didn't like talking about fossil evidence, and wasn't to keen on the idea back then because it was in the 1800's when fossils weren't as common as they are now. Scientists have found less than 1% of all the fossils ever, but that's still enough to start to see that it is true that there are species that slowly but surely transform and branch into Other species. That's why he couldn't give a "satisfactory answer" as to why there weren't fossils of cambrian times, because they simply hadn't been found yet. Now we have a superior amount of fossils that date way before that time period, and that help better explain evolution.

And evolution doesn't happen where things just grow a vital organ or a brain so you can't say, take out a human brain and it can't function without it so humans didn't come from monkeys. That would be saying if humans came from monkeys, that means they don't have brains. How idiotic does that sound? Evolution is the contributing factor to make individual things more complex so the individual can survive life easier. If you think back to a few million years ago when apes were transforming into humans, the evolution process made our brains bigger, to obtain more knowledge, it wasn't just like -this monkey has a mutation of a brain. It's hard to explain, but the whole  "A single system composed of several well-matched,

> interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the

> removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease

> functioning." thing just doesn't make sense at all.

Matt

Well, I must say I am glad you no longer believe in that god. The unfortunate end is the perception you grew of the Christian God at such a young age in your life. I do believe you are correct; many parents press so much religion into their children (too quickly and not in depth) that it does in fact push them away from it. I don’t doubt one bit that you found those classes to be futile and tedious. However, simply because clarification could not have been provided for your questions and concerns there is little reason to discredit a belief. It would be like asking someone what’s on the other side of the moon, and if that question is not answered according to your timely fashion than you would assume that there is nothing on the other side of the moon. I also agree with you that I do believe a lot of religion is false, however I do believe in both and absolute/objective truth along with absolute/objective morals which can only be found by a transcendent foundation that man did not create. There is not one scripture in the Bible where God says He hates gay people, I am not sure where you found this or who taught this but it is false, secondly God has never made people to be gay. The human X and Y chromosomes (the two “sex” chromosomes) have been completely sequenced. Thanks to work carried out by labs all across the globe, we know that the X chromosome contains 153 million base pairs, and harbors a total of 1168 genes (see NCBI, 2004). The National Center for Biotechnology Information reports that the Y chromosome which is much smaller contains “only” 50 million base pairs, and is estimated to contain a mere 251 genes. Educational institutions such as Baylor University, the Max Planck Institute, the Sanger Institute, Washington University in St. Louis, and others have spent countless hours and millions of research dollars analyzing these unique chromosomes. As the data began to pour in, they allowed scientists to construct gene maps—using actual sequences from the Human Genome Project. And yet, neither the map for the X nor the Y chromosome contains any “gay gene.” Prior to 1973, homosexuality appeared in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the official reference book used by the American Psychiatric Association for diagnosing mental disorders in America and throughout much of the rest of the world. Homosexuality was considered a sickness that doctors routinely treated. In 1973, however, it was removed as a sexual disorder, based on the claim that it did not fulfill the “distress and social disability” criteria that were used to define a disorder. Today, there is no mention of homosexuality in the DSM-IV (aside from a section describing gender identity disorder), indicating that individuals with this condition are not suitable candidates for therapy (see American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Physicians treating patients for homosexuality (to bring about a change in sexual orientation) frequently are reported to ethics committees in an attempt to have them cease. Homosexuality is created through environmental effects on an individual’s life. Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicate. It appears that the gay gene will be added to this category of un-replicated claims. The real issue here is homosexual actions that society has deemed immoral and, in many instances, illegal. Since no study has firmly established an underlying genetic cause for homosexuality, arguments suggesting “equal rights” are both baseless and illogical Natural selection postulates that those genetic mutations that favor survival and reproduction will be selected, whereas those that compromise survival and reproduction will be eliminated. Obviously, a gene or series of genes that produce non-reproducing individuals (i.e., those who express pure homosexual behavior) will be rapidly eliminated from any population. So, it would be expected that any "gay gene" would be efficiently removed from a population. If you would like to go into more detail we can but we have clear evidence that there is no such thing as a “gay” gene. You don’t even have to be a Christian to discover this.

It is apparent that you turned away from your faith at such a young age because by Gods grace through Jesus every sin (past present and future) has been wiped away. When we believe in Jesus and give our lives to him than whatever sin we have committed has been paid for, so now simply because you did bad things you would not spend and eternity in hell. Many misunderstandings have been made by both new believers and skeptics while reading OT laws. There is massive amounts of manuscripts which support the accuracy and validity of the Bible; even non-biblical scholars provide evidence not to mention all of the archeological evidence. The NT was written 40-100 AD and the earliest copy found was 125 AD which is a span of 25 years, we have 5,686 copies. The runner up is Homer’s Iliad written in 9^th century BC the earliest copy found was in 400 BC which is a 500 year span with only 643 copies. The number difference is huge. The Bible is an extremely accurate historical book that has yet to be refuted. When read at face value then yes it would appear to contain contradictions but they have all been clarified with careful evaluation.

I’d like to quote Paul Davies who is an evolutionist who states “Biological information is not encoded in the laws of physics and chemistry, and it cannot come into existence spontaneously. There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing”. There are things that are irreducibly complex (bacterial flagellum) how does gradual evolution explain this. A quick quote from microbiologist Michael Behe “Like a mechanical motor, each part in the flagellar motor is absolutely necessary for the whole to function. Therefore, I couldn't logically deduce any naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the existence of a bacterial flagellum. Besides, no one would expect an outboard motor, whether mechanical or biological, to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts. Outboard motors are designed and engineered.  There are 20 different kinds of amino acids that are used to construct the proteins of all living organisms, including man. The average person consists of a string of 500 amino acids. The total number of combinations of 20 different amino acids in such a string is, for all practical purposes unlimited. Each protein in our body however must contain a specific sequence of amino acids if it is to function properly. I urge you to take an honest look at the probability and see if gradual evolution is still a reasonable argument.
The 500 amino acids that make up an average sized protein can be arranged in over 1 x 10^600 different ways (one followed by 600 zeroes). If we had a computer that could rearrange the 500 amino acids of a particular protein at the rate of a billion combinations in a second, we would still stand essentially no chance of hitting the correct combination for biological things to operate they need genetic information. My question to you is where did the information of DNA come from how did it arise in the first place. Lots of people have wanted to explain the origin of information by reference to the laws of physics and chemistry or by reference of chemical properties of the constituent parts of the DNA. That would be like saying that you could explain the information in the morning paper by reference to the physics and chemistry of ink bonding to paper. There is a chemical explanation as to why the ink sticks to the paper but that does not explain the way the ink got arranged to convey a message that could be understood by speakers of English language.  Information requires a material medium but it does transcend the material medium.

As far as the fossil record goes there is no evidence of transitional fossils. Even Stephen J Gould and evolutionist admits “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology, the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips of the nodes of their branches; the rest is inference,  however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils”.  We see only fully formed species with variation but no evidence of species evolving into other species. This is a large topic on its own so If you would like to go into more detail we can.