Which geological periods are in correct order from oldest to youngest?
Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic are in the right order, but those are considered to be eras instead of periods. Permian, Triassic, Cretaceous would almost be right, except that the Jurassic period happened between the Triassic and Cretaceous. Same with the Cretaceous happening between the Jurassic period and Cenozoic era for 4. 1 is simply backwards.
What is the order of these stages of theories from earliest to latest?
It depends on the mental condition of the person concerned. It is my own feeling. Some people may be extra smart. Some people may be dull. Some people may be cunning. Some people may be arrogant. All are not uniformly built in their nature. The result may thus vary from person to person based on their mental steadiness or mental stability.
What are the latest developments in String Theory?
The latest developments are very technical and hard to translate into non-mathmatical terms that lend themselves to this format. Check the physics journals for the latest (see the link below). In general lay terms, some of these developments include time evolution, D-branes, a variety of developments on tachyons, guage fixing, and time lumps.
Evolution question: When did these species emerge?
Steve's answer is wrong (he got the sharks and dinosaurs the wrong way around). The correct order from earliest to latest is: 1) Sea Star 2) Shark 3) Dinosaur 4) Whale 5) Duck
HOW THE EARTH FORMED-put the events in chronological order?
Water was brought to Earth from meteors (mostly during the late heavy bombardment ~3.8 Ga, a time of heavy meteorite bombardment), since any water initially on Earth's surface after it formed was blown away by the solar wind. It is believed that cyanobacteria (aka blue-green algae) are the reason why there is oxygen in the atmosphere today. They have been around for at least 3.4 Ga (billion years). Before they evolved there was little free O2 in the atmosphere (it was mostly CO2, and there was not nearly enough O2 for rust to form). These cyanobacteria are believed to have created O2 during photosynthesis which first built-up in the oceans. Potentially rust could form after this occured; though this issue is debated. The problem is with timing the buildup of oxygen in the atmosphere. There is a ton of debate on this issue. You need free oxygen to produce rust. Rust will not form in rocks under pressure below the Earth's surface, as the oxygen in these rocks is all locked up in fluids or in the mineral structures themselves. Free oxygen will react with iron to form iron oxide minerals, such as hematite (Fe2O3), which make up rust. Oxygen has built up in the atmosphere over time but researchers are unsure exactly how quickly/when. (Big debate). I'd say rusting before O2 build up in the atmosphere but it is hard to say, depends on the evidence used for determining the O2 content of the atmosphere. The presence of rust does not imply that the atmosphere was oxygenated, as banded iron formations are believed to have formed underwater and could have formed when atmospheric O2 was low as long as seawater O2 was high. It takes awhile for the atmosphere and seawater to build up oxygen. Most of the early oxygen produced by photosynthesizing bacteria went into seawater and then facilitated the precipitation of iron onto the seafloor. If there was enough Fe in seawater, it could effective lock up most of the O2 produced by the photosynthesizing bacteria for a logn period of time. Fe would be precipitated and this would decrease O2 content in the oceans, which means there would be less O2 to go into the atmosphere. This is debatable though.
No scientific theory can be proven. Not in the deductive sense. However, the key thing about scientific theories is that they can be tested. In fact, in order to have the status of theory, it must have already been through extensive testing.Science is a largely inductive, or abductive method. Induction is the process of drawing general conclusions from multiple observations. For example, the conclusion that dropped objects fall is inductive. We are confident of this because when we drop an object, it always falls. Of course, this runs into the problem of induction. Karl Popper, a renowned philosopher of science, reasoned that rather than trying to prove a hypothesis correct, instead, the effort should be directed towards trying to prove it incorrect. A valid scientific hypothesis must be open to falsification. That is, you must be able to draw conclusions about the real world, predictions of what should be found, which, if these predictions do not come true, would render the hypothesis incorrect. This is the logical form modus tollens, or denying the consequent.The more a scientific hypothesis withstands this testing, the more acceptance it will gain in the scientific community. However, this acceptance is always provisional, because, in principle, the next test could fail.And, just like we have concluded that dropping a pencil will result in its falling, some scientific theories have been tested so well, that they gain a similar level of acceptance.Contrast this with faith-based beliefs. In general, these beliefs are untestable. There is no way to deduce predictions from a proposition that relies on a supernatural, capricious entity. There can be no regularity in such a position.Is there a difference between science and faith? Yes, and that difference is fundamental and unbridgeable.
Which best describes how the current scientific model of the atom was developed?
Which best describes how the current scientific model of the atom was developed? The model was the result of hundreds of years of experiments. Recent experiments invalidated most of the work of the last 200 years. Most of the discoveries from the early 1900s were shown to be incorrect. New experiments were ignored if they did not agree with the accepted theory. Which of these ideas was part of the earliest model of the atom? Atoms can produce streams of charged particles. Electrons move too fast to describe where they are located. Neutrons are located in the same place as protons. Atoms are hard, tiny particles like billiard balls. Which of the following best explains why the atomic theory changed over the past 200 years? The theory was terribly flawed. Few people believed it was correct. The atomic model was incomplete. New experiments led to revised ideas.
Especially regarding Jesus, the assertion is certainly taken seriously, but the scholarly consensus, the opinion on which most experts agree after investigating, is that both existed.There is a great deal more evidence for the existence of Jesus/ישוע of Nazareth than for 90% of the historical figures from ancient times. There is a lot of disagreement between New Testament and Near East historians about the details of his opinions and his life, but most if not all qualified historians agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist (although no location is agreed upon) and that he was crucified on the orders of prefect Pontius Pilatus.I’m also pretty sure most modern historians agree that Muhammad is a historical figure, and that most of the accounts about his life are true. There have been some doubts, however, of whether he actually lived in the Arabian Peninsula, but the attempts to disprove his existence have often been accused of suffering from methodological problems, and were always more about archaeology anyway. Colin Wells even compared Yehuda D. Nevo and Judith Koren’s attempts to Holocaust denial. The best reception was David Cook stating that their thesis “was plausible or at least arguable”We have sources from Byzantine Syria that speak of a “false prophet among the Saracens” commanding a military force, which seems to be pretty much in line with traditional Islamic history.So, to conclude, the historical consensus is that both existed as historical figures, but as with any subject, this hasn’t stopped people from denying their existence.