0
What else can I help you with?
Why scientist no longer supported Lavoisier conclusion about acids?
Because this was in the Olden times l like in the midde ages
Would fossils of species that did not change noticeably over time be useful in determining the relative ages of rocks explain?
Yes, fossils of species that did not change noticeably over time, known as "index fossils," can be very useful in determining the relative ages of rocks. These fossils represent specific geological periods and can be used as markers to correlate the ages of rock layers across different locations. Their presence in a particular layer indicates that the rock is from the same time period as other layers containing the same fossils, aiding in the understanding of the geological timeline. Thus, even stable species can provide valuable information for stratigraphic correlation.
What fault can be useful in determining which of the following for a group of rocks?
the answer is procces of breaking down rock into smaller and smaller sediments
How does determining the ages of igneous rocks help to date fossils?
Determining the ages of igneous rocks helps to establish the age of the rock layer in which fossils are found. By dating the igneous rocks above and below the fossil-containing layer, scientists can narrow down the possible age range of the fossils found within that layer. This helps to provide a more accurate estimate of the fossil's age.
What does the phrase ages and ages and ages mean?
Ages and ages and ages means a really long time.
What were two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the middle ages?
Two methods were: - trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and - trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
What were methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the Early Middle Ages.?
Two methods were: - trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and - trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
What were two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the Early Middle Ages?
Two methods were: - trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and - trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
What were the two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early Middle Ages?
Two methods were: - trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and - trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
What were two methods of deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the Early Middle Ages?
Two methods were: - trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and - trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
What were two methods for deciding the guilt or the innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages?
Two methods were: - trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and - trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
What were two method for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages?
Two methods were: - trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and - trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
What were two methods for deciding the guilt of innocence of accused criminals in the Early method ages?
Two methods were: - trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and - trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
When Queen Victoria was queen was it the midde ages?
No. She was several hundred years later in the 1800's.
Why scientist no longer supported Lavoisier conclusion about acids?
Because this was in the Olden times l like in the midde ages
What were two methods for deciding the guilt of accused criminals in the early middle ages?
In the early Middle Ages, two common methods for determining the guilt of accused criminals were trial by ordeal and trial by combat. Trial by ordeal involved subjecting the accused to a painful or dangerous test, with the belief that divine intervention would reveal their innocence or guilt based on the outcome. Trial by combat allowed the accused and their accuser to engage in a physical fight, with the victor presumed to be favored by God and thus deemed innocent. Both methods reflected the era's reliance on superstition and physical evidence rather than formal legal proceedings.
How did the Middle Ages decide innocence or accused?
During the Middle Ages, the determination of innocence or guilt often relied on trial by ordeal or combat, where the accused underwent physically challenging tests believed to be divinely influenced. Other methods included witness testimonies and confessions, sometimes obtained through coercion. The legal system was heavily influenced by local customs and the Church, which played a significant role in adjudicating moral and ethical issues. Overall, the process was rudimentary and often unjust, lacking the due process standards we expect today.
