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

Universal scientific laws "My opponent is using the laws of the earth to support his claim. " My opponent is correct that I have been using ‘Earth laws' as a point of reference. Since I made a mistake of applying the argument to the typical winged-unicorns we see in lands of rainbows and sunshine, (similar to Earth) I will adjust the examples I use. The broader point of my argument will remain the same. To reframe the argument I will use whatever examples my opponent burdens me with in our definitions of an FPU. "…Flying is basically propelling yourself through the air. It was never defined in this debate, but let's not be semantical" I don't believe I'm at risk of being accused of using semantics, but if my opponent would like me to assume our flying pink unicorn doesn't have wings, I'll do so, as it has no effect on the validity of my argument. Since we can't assume this FPU has wings I'll have to show it's impossible, whether this pink, horse like creature is flying with wings, floating on the moon, or flying commercial on British Airways. A horses' weight is just an example I was using as something that is horse-like. Since a lower gravity environment would make this less relevant, I will increase the number of horse-like attributes that I cite. Regardless if this creature has wings or not, we will have to theorize how it would evolve. In the wingless example, we can assume it would exist on a small planet with low gravity. The creature's weight would presumably keep it fixed to the ground, but regardless of that, we would have to imagine a methodology for lift off. Since horses' legs are formed in a manner that optimizes forward thrust and leverage, capable of moving its large body very quickly, we are aware of some key components to its movement. [1] It cannot jump vertically with any kind of significant momentum, but can gain great power when leaping at some speed. This means our FPU cannot take flight by ‘vertical lift' like a helicopter, but closer to something resembling an airplane. Once our wingless FPU gets a running start, jumps, he/she/it is now air born and soon flying through the air. The problem now is without wings this creature has no way of controlling altitude, speed, or balance. In my opponent's example of the moon, this FPU would now literally be zooming out into space. While being wingless makes more sense in this environment, this creature is still at the mercy of forces beyond its control. Let's assume this wingless FPU somehow did evolve to have a way to fly functionally on an Earth like planet with low gravity. Without wings it would need another manner of control, something like fins on its back and sides to control angles and speed. Finally, when landing, a horse's legs would need to be angled, and designed, to handle a hard landing at fast speeds. Something horse-like is obviously not designed this way, and if this characteristic were to be applied, several others would need to be as well. Spinal structure, bone density, perhaps the circulatory system and even type of feet. [2] (There is also no example of a 4 legged animal than can fly in all of nature) After all this is applied to an animal, living in the optimal planetary conditions for something ‘horse like' to be able to fly, it would then no longer even resemble what we consider to be a horse. It's possible this description of a wingless ‘unicorn' would come closer to resembling something like a fish with legs, and just vaguely (if at all) look like a horse. I'd also like to point out if this is just a dead pink horse with a horn in its head floating through space- my opponent's BOP is not fulfilled, as this wouldn't constitute ability to fly, but ability to be dead in space and float. A horse-like creature exists on Earth because the conditions are right for it to exist. Should we adjust these conditions slightly, we would have to consider the ramifications of such an action. The dramatic changes from adding a feature to a subject that is entirely opposed to this addition, makes it that much more improbable, or in this case impossible. Therefore, adding flight (with wings or without) to an animal that has been optimized for survival on the ground would change all the characteristics that actually make this creature horse-like at all. Horses are horse-like because they do horse things, in a horse compatible world. Once they evolve into a species that floats around aimlessly in space they become something different altogether, and would be closer to evolving into tumbleweed. While the FPU almost seems plausible, it makes no more sense than debating a likelihood of evolution culminating in inside-out monkeys. It would be impossible for such a species to exist, regardless of the planet, because these rules are universal. This is the bottom line: At the point in which a horse becomes a flight capable creature and species, it is no longer a horse, or resembling anything like a horse. Even the concept, is a contradiction in terms, and is therefore impossible. "…He is accidentally conceding the fact that it is possible to exist. " My opponent seems to believe an argument using a theoretical example, to reach a specific hypothetical conclusion, should be perceived as a concession. A = Reality B = Potential reality I argued: If X, then maybe Y = B B is not = to A because X is impossible. Therefore the logic in my opponent's argument here isn't sound. I assure my opponent that if I intend to concede I will make it clear. Paradoxical characteristics A Flying horse, even as a pink, four legged fish type unicorn thing, is impossible, even under optimal planetary condition for such a creature to exist. It contradicts our entire scientific understanding for how life forms would evolve under any circumstances. It's not only gravity that makes this concept impossible. It is the entire idea of being horse-like. Why would something evolve to be able to fly, while still being optimized to be exclusively on the ground? It's entirely counter intuitive. Personal witness An unverifiable statement by an individual has no credibility, or value, scientifically. It has no effect on what people should consider possible and does not increase the possibilities of anything. If my opponent would like to argue it theologically, that I should have faith in the existence of the FPU because of his word, then arguments from religious texts, philosophy, and anthropological data would be fascinating to read. Simply saying something doesn't make it possible, evidence must be presented, or it should be dismissed (if the thing being stated isn't impossible (like an FPU) it should be investigated, if credible). "If my opponent thinks that I might be crazy as he suggests then I will just ignore that. " I do not actually believe that my opponent is crazy. He seems sane enough. I don't think stating he has seen an FPU is because he is either crazy or lying, I believe it is due to him being in a debate in which he has to argue that it is possible it exists. Since there are no ‘credible' (credible as opposed to random) outside witnesses, this argument can be dismissed. Infinite Universe The parameters of science have dictated that the FPU is impossible under even very specific conditions. Non-existence 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. Should my opponent wish to theorize how a flying horse would evolve and why, then we might have our first ever ‘flying horse theory'. Although, simply explaining why a horse would develop a horn and be pink, might be difficult enough. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, as it has been a fun and interesting experience so far. [1] . http://ultimatehorsesite.com... [2] . http://www.gaitedhorses.net...