Absolute Truth

So I'm not just making abstract arguments I will provide the following sources which I believe should further prove my points. "The Eastern scriptures say that no statement about the world is ultimately valid ("The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. " Tao Te Ching, Verse 1), since not even the most elaborate language is capable of rendering a perfect model of the universe. Science is often compared to a tree that branches out into many directions. The disposition of physics is that it follows the tree upward to its branches and leaves, while meta-physics follows it down to the root. Whether the branches of knowledge stretch out indefinitely is still a matter of debate. However, it appears that most scientific discoveries do not only answer questions, but also raise new ones. " . http://www.thebigview.com... "The act of measuring one magnitude of a particle, be it its mass, its velocity, or its position, causes the other magnitudes to blur. This is not due to imprecise measurements. Technology is advanced enough to hypothetically yield correct measurements. The blurring of these magnitudes is a fundamental property of nature. " . http://www.thebigview.com... My first quote I use to prove that "Theoretical" truths are constantly being proven wrong by new "theoretical" truths that will be proven wrong then or later by other "theoretical" truths. My second quote proves that in nature as you try to pinpoint accuracy you end up gaining information at the cost of losing other information. Essentially, everything is relative. My opponent keeps saying their has to be truths that have to be constant and yet he provides no actual rational for such a claim other than his own opinion. In order for a truth to be "Absolute" it must be complete and it must be pure. It can not ever change. If we want to use my opponents example of my birth, I would say I wasn't full aware of what was happening then so for all we know I could've been dropped off by aliens. At the instant that my opponent is asking me to confirm a truth that I am not even 100% on myself he has opened himself up to the whole point of my argument. That all truths can or will be proven wrong by one means or another. So no it is not an undeniable fact; in fact we still don't even fully understand the human brain so who's to say that the brain is not somehow transported through an alternate dimension and that's how it works during a birth? To use my own example; the apple is red because as humans it is defined as red. Yet an alternate being could have made the statement that the apple is green to them. For them the apple will always be green and thus that is their "theoretical truth". I'd like to further say I am not necessarily saying all truths are false. I'm saying their is no definitive truth because all truths can be challenged by utilizing other truths thus their is no 100% truth or their is no "absolute" truth thus negating the resolution. My opponent has only provided abstract example as to why he believes he is right while constantly trying to make it seem I am providing absolutely ridiculous arguments without ever properly refuting them. I assume my opponent was expecting a particular argument against him and he is unprepared to deal with a more abstract argument. The reasons for voting for the Con during this debate is that my opponent has provide no justifiable main argument that can affirm the resolution. My opponent provides multiple examples that he believes are true while constantly trying to make my case seem pointless. I stand strongly behind my arguments which I now back with even more sources to help further clarify my side. By voting for my side you are not saying that the absolute truth exists or doesn't exist. You are mainly confirming that my "theoretical" truth has proved his wrong for the purpose of this debate.