Arglebargle. This is my response to her.
I got out my astronomy book that I used all this year just to review so things so I'll be ready when school starts back. Upon doing so I ran into some things I had hi-lighted (and wrote small LOL out to the side or contradictions on certain pages. (Whether in the book or by scientific observation and reasoning.)
Lulz.
One of the LOL(/contradiction) I've run into says "Scientists try to form hypotheses that explain how nature works. If a hypothesis is contradicted by experiment or observations, it must be revised or discarded."
Yep.
I just thought so you mean that if I said that I have a sample of E. Coli in a jar and I form a hypotheses that states "This E. Coli will eventually turn into Lactobacillus with just adaptation and time. That hypothesis would be discarded if it never happen?" and the answer is of course yes.
No. If your hypothesis is that
E. coli will turn into lactobacillus, then how do you know it won't happen if you don't wait another day? In the case of evolution, these things take
millions of years.
Of course, evolution doesn't say one species evolves into another, pre-existing species. Evolution says they evolve into completely new species.
"Then why do scientist still teach us that a single-celled micro bacterium turned into multi-celled bacterium and eventually formed all the life we see today if we've never actually observed a single-celled bacterium become a multi-celled bacterium?"
Because the evidence supports this hypothesis. There isn't a shred of evidence to the contrary; I challenge you to cite any.
This LOL moment also lead to see the first huge contradiction (even though this section is before the part listed above) it states "There was no light for the first 400 million years, until gravity was able to pull some of the gas together to form the fist stars."
Yep.
Well we've never observed gravity randomly in space all the gravity seem to be created because the star is already there. So doesn't that mean that you have already contradicted a hypothesis and that it needs to be revised or discarded?
No. Your astonishing lack of understanding as to the nature of gravity doesn't mean you've refuted the entire field of astrophysics.
Gravity is when stuff pulls on stuff. The more stuff there is in a particular place, the harder the pull. That's why black holes are so powerful: there's an awful lot of stuff very very close together, which has a very strong pull.
Light formed 400 million years ago because a) before that, there were no stars, and b) after that, there were. The first stars formed when gas slowly pulled itself together in little clumps, which then pulled more gas in, and more and more, until it was so dense that it began to undergo thermonuclear fusion (basically, its what makes the Sun bright and hot). Thus, there was light.
I'm only on Chapter one now, I'll post more as I read on so stay tuned. ( And please don't have people come in here saying "You don't understand how science works." (or something to the effect.) I'm getting this straight from a text book so if you want to complain to someone call Michael A. Seeds or Dana E. Beckman...)
You don't know how science works. If you think you've found a contradiction between your understanding of science and the textbook, it's almost certainly an error on your part: Seeds and Beckman, who I assume wrote the book, are probably much smarter than either of us. Obviously, it's not unheard of for a textbook to be wrong, especially if it's a) out-of-date, or b) a small typo. But major things like that, no, I don't think you've overturned the entire field of cosmology and astrophysics.
Instead of declaring it a contradiction (LOL), why not simply ask someone to explain it for you?
