Final answer:
Theories and laws represent different aspects of scientific knowledge; a theory explains while a law describes. Theories don't become laws with more evidence, and laws can be changed if contradicted by new evidence. Scientific inquiry is a dynamic process that adapts to new discoveries and technological advances.
Step-by-step explanation:
I disagree with the statement that "Theories don’t have enough evidence to be laws. Once science proves them true they will become laws." In scientific terms, theories and laws have distinct roles and one does not become the other over time. A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or observations. A scientific law, on the other hand, describes patterns observed in nature, often summarized by equations. Theories explain 'why' and laws describe 'how'. Therefore, a theory remains a theory, and a law remains a law regardless of evidence or proof.
Your friend is incorrect in saying that a scientific law cannot be changed. Scientific laws can be modified or overthrown if new evidence emerges that contradicts them. For example, discoveries such as viewing microscopic entities or observing Earth from space have led to adjustments in existing theories and laws. The process of scientific inquiry is dynamic, and laws are continuously tested to ensure their validity. New technology can provide insights previously unavailable, necessitating revisions to established scientific laws and theories.
Constant retesting and the ability to predict unobserved phenomena are some of the strengths of scientific models. However, all laws and theories are deemed valid until proven otherwise by new experiments. If a high-quality experiment contradicts a well-established law, scientists will update their understanding to incorporate this new knowledge.