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

Before I begin to rebut my opponent's opening round, I would like to state that I have agreed to all definitions and further understand our definition of unicorn is simply a horse like creature with a horn in its head, and in this case pink, with the ability to fly. With that said, lets begin. .. Possibility I agree to my opponent's point here. I have a burden of proof to show that the chances of the existence of "a flying pink unicorn" are 0%. FPU paradoxical characteristics 1. Body and head of a horse No arguments here. 2. Has a horn on its forehead I'll agree this is possible as a ‘scientific anomaly', that a horse would grow a horn. While it is unlikely, it's certainly within the realm of reason. 3. Is of mostly the color pink Stranger things have happened, and if my opponent told me he saw a pink horse with a horn in its head and called it a unicorn, I might be inclined to not think he was crazy. 4. Has the ability to fly This is indeed contradictory to the first point, and is where the argument goes off the rails. There is no scientific possibility of a flying horse. It is contrary to our accepted ideas of biology and evolutionary sciences, as well as our understanding of flight in the animal kingdom. There is no record of any such animal ever having existed, or the possibility that it ever could, given the characteristics we see for all animals capable of flight. From the earliest examples of vertebrates capable of flight, pterosaurs [1], and bats [2] to the common birds we see today, several characteristics are always apparent. Obviously wings, but ignoring that, the form and weight of the animal are crucial. I will likely go into this further in a later round. Horses on the other hand, are heavy, four legged land mammals. ‘Land mammal' (usually meant to exclude dolphins and whales etc. ) naturally does seem redundant here, as the bat is the only mammal even capable of sustained flight. (Not to confuse ‘flying mammals' that actually ‘glide' instead of fly)[3][4] Therefore, "Has the ability to fly" Is indeed contradictory to "Has the body and head of a horse", and is entirely impossible. I'd like to add that while the "flying horse" has no scientific basis or possibility, it's fairly common in folklore. This is not however any type of basis for its possible presence throughout existence, as the flying horse is just the folklore version of modern sci-fi's flying car. It reflects the Human aspiration towards flight and freedom. But its existence is either elusive, or impossible, as in the case of the flying horse. Personal witness argument My opponent says he has in fact seen a flying pink unicorn, and says that I cannot prove that he did not. Since I have proven (or will prove) a flying horse is scientifically impossible, I believe the only logical conclusion would be to assume my opponent is lying. To refute this, my opponent makes two points he says I must argue: 1. "There is no possibility I was not lying" For it to be an honest statement, horses must be capable of flight. They are not. 2. There is no possibility I am not crazy, and thus did not imagine it. If my opponent believes he saw a flying horse it could logically be concluded that he is crazy, but I would agree that he wouldn't believe it to be imagined if he were. "There is no evidence that I am lying. And thus there is a possibility I am not. " The evidence of lying is in the impossibility of the statement. Therefore anyone who considers "possible" to be that which is within the realm of our collective understanding would consider the statement to be a lie, or that of someone crazy. "Judging from this debate and my other ones it is evident that I am not crazy. " My opponent is making a hypothetical statement and defends it by saying he is not crazy by using non-hypothetical evidence for his lack of craziness. This reasoning does not follow. Ultimately the "personal witness argument" only has merit if it comes with credibility. If a world-renowned biologist claims to have spliced together a flying horse, perhaps then there would be a .01% chance of its existence. Since no scientist is making this claim, or ever will, it remains at 0%. Infinite Universe argument I have no problem at all with this argument as long as it stays within the realm of our scientific understanding and thus within the arena of what we consider to be possible. 1. There is a possibility of the universe being infinite I agree. 2. An infinite universe would mean an infinite amount of planets Agreed again. 3. Infinite amount of planets would mean an infinite amount of possible life forms Life form formation is limited to a set of parameters, and is therefore not entirely infinite. While we may never be able to calculate how many different possibilities there are, scientists can take reasonable guesses as to what type of life forms would evolve given certain circumstances. Even silicone (as opposed to carbon) based life is being theorized and is not out of the realm of possibility. However, one must still use scientific basis for any life form theorized, and "the flying horse" cannot be included. 4. An infinite amount of possible life forms would include a flying pink unicorn All life conforms to certain scientific realities. It evolves based on its environment and stimuli, and develops accordingly. Should a mammal be required to have flight for any reason, the rest of its development would be adjusted as well. In the instance of a horse, our understanding of biology would lead us to assume that given the realities of flight-capable creatures, it would need to change its form significantly. At the point in which this type of animal would be capable of flying, (its body sleeker and lighter, its spinal and bone structure altered) it would no longer even be considered a horse, making the existence impossible, and even the concept an oxymoron… 5. It is possible that a flying unicorn exists …Therefore a flying, horse-like creature does not exist, and couldn't possibly exist. The flying horse has no scientific basis or possibility at all, and perhaps that's why it's so pervasive in our imaginations. Proving non-existence I have begun to make a reasonable argument, (which I will likely continue and expand upon in later rounds) that a flying pink horse-like creature is indeed impossible. I obviously cannot provide direct evidence of a negative, but will easily be able to provide enough scientific basis to show that the existence of such a creature is impossible, thus negating this argument, and the resolution. I will conclude my rebuttals of this round for now and conclude with a simple summary: A flying pink unicorn is indeed impossible because it contradicts scientific fact and nature itself. "Possibility" must be contained to our basic realm of understanding, and an FPU directly contradicts even our basic biological understanding of animals capable of flight. Further, a FPU is an entirely illogical culmination of evolution, being unlike anything we have encountered in any fossil records, as well as being structurally (weight; body and bone structure and capable of flight) impossible. A flying horse-like creature makes as much sense as a mammal with gills. Not only would the existence of such an animal be illogical, it would also be impossible. [5] I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to his response. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://science.howstuffworks.com... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...