0
What evidence have scientists found to support our understading of these events and characteristics of earth's past?
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
The answer is Paleontology: This is the study of ancient or prehistoric life on earth with the main source characterized by PALEOBIOLOGY which is simply the old study of life. This form of study has been made possible through the help of FOSSILS which are evidences of past life. It has a broad definition that includes the standard shells,bones,petrifiedwood and leaves. NB: Petrified means to change into stone over a long period of time.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How did Lavoisier's evidence support other scientists?
i dont now
What evidence do scientists have to support the relationships of the earths parts?
a. seismic waves b. volcanoes c. earthquakes d. rocks
What evidence do scientists have to support the idea that the continents were once one large land mass?
the evidence is istoy lng.......
How long was it before new evidence emerged to support wegener's original theory?
In the 1960's scientists uncovered new evidence that seemed to support Wegener's theory.
What is the primary source of evidence proposed by scientists to support the theory of an ancient Earth?
Fossils.
Why is a hypothesis that is unsupported by observation rejected by scientists?
Simply put, because there is not enough evidence to support it. "Rejected by scientists" should not be taken to always mean "scientist believe it is impossible" - rather, consistent evidence that support the hypothesis has not been produced.
What do you think scientists would do if they found evidence that did not support the Big Bang theory?
Discard it all.
If new evidence does not support a scientific theory scientists will most likely?
modify the theory or discard it altogether.
What evidence support spontaneous generation?
There was no evidence and still is none. Louis Pasteur along with countless other scientists have disproved the theory of spontaneous generation.
What are two factors that help maintain scientists believability?
The two factors that help maintain a scientists believability is evidence and logical support. These are the ones that are considered to be scientific credibility factors.
Why is the theory of relativity accepted by scientists?
Like all accepted scientific theories, there is a general consensus amongst scientists across the world that there is enough evidence from observation and experimentation to support it.
Do you think it's wise for scientists not to accept a theory immediately even if the theory has a lot of evidence to support it?
Each scientists have there own opinion. Some accept theories and some have to have facts.
