It is possible that a flying pink unicorn exists (2)

I really don't see how we can even consider the cons case as anything near credible. My opponent has averted almost completely to the argument that the FPU would lose its horse like qualities during the evolutionary process, and that evolution could not bring it to the defined said life form, due to spinal and bone structure. In other words, he asserts that there is a zero percent possibility that the quite random, bizarre, wandering evolutionary theory could in any chance, not even one in ten trillion, produce the said being, in one of an infinite amount of planets. Let me stress this more. Suppose there are one trillion planets that contain life forms. That's an astronomical amount. Can we really believe there is NO possibility the discussed life form could not exist in at least one of these planets?? It would be very narrow minded to assume so. But even this voluminous number is only a tiny fraction of the amount of inhabited planets an infinite universe would hold. In fact multiply one trillion by any number and it would be impossible to get anywhere near infinity! The fact that the universe might be infinite is a truly amazingly profound and mind boggling contemplation!! Isn't it?//It contradicts our entire scientific understanding for how life forms would evolve under any circumstances.//Absurd. As if evolution is a well established and observed scientific fact. As if science is not one of the most unstable philosophies of man. Macro evolution, while a very compelling theory, has not been near properly observed. We can't know for a fact what evolution can or cannot produce, as my opponent assumes, especially on planets we have not even studied. Science, while very progressed, is constantly changing. New knowledge is always being discovered, and past accepted theories discarded. Thus, it is absurd to pretend to know for a hard fact that a horse like creature with wings could not in any possibility evolve. Flying Without WingsMy opponent really does not at all refute the fact that their might be some other natural device possible for flying other than wings. We've only observed one method of flying in nature, but does that mean that there are no other possible ways? It is quite possible that there exists another method of flying.My opponents conceded pointCon basically says my testimony of seeing the FPU cannot be considered as a possibility because it is not made by a credible witness. I think the viewers can easily find this proves my case. For my opponent believes that if someone credible were to make the statement then we would have to count it as a possibility. It is possible that I am a credible witness. Therefore it is possible that I was not lying or crazy.// Hundreds of facts directly contradict the potential existence of an FPU. Zero hard facts point to the potential existence of an FPU. This puts the FPU in the impossible category.//First my opponent makes the completely false statement that hundreds of facts contradict my case. Having us believe that he has presented all these facts. He has presented only a few so called facts so I do not know what prompted con to make this greatly exaggerated assertion. Second con makes the fallacy of assuming that we need hard facts to prove the existence of the FPU. I don't need to do anything of the sort. The so called hard facts my opponent puts forth are those of evolutionary process. Not only have we not observed macro evolution, but we have only studied evolution pertaining to the earth. Evolution on other possible planets is something that has not been in the least bit studied, nor could it. Yet my pretends that we know for a fact what could and could not evolve in these other worlds!! Science is something that has not been studied in other planets where life might be. We know HARDLY ANYTHING about what could live in the possibly infinite amount of inhabited planets, because we have no knowledge of these planets whatsoever. Therefore there can be no hard facts about life formation on these worlds. My opponent needs absolute hard facts for us to consider his case. This is something he is greatly lacking. My opponents case is dismally fallible. To my opponent, thank you for the most enjoyable debate.