Antoine Lavoisier is the scientist that said that matter is neither created nor destroyed.
<h3>Who was Antoine Lavoisier?</h3>
This is the name of the scientist who was a French Nobleman as well as a chemist. He was one of the persons that was central to the Chemical revolution that took place in the European continent. His discovery and science has a lot of influence on modern science and biology today.
Hence we can say that Antoine Lavoisier is the scientist that said that matter is neither created nor destroyed.
Read more on Antoine Lavoisier here: brainly.com/question/4345117
#SPJ1
<span>His younger child is concrete operational, while his older child is formal operational. Both are stages of the development of children's thinking. The concrete operational stage covers from 8 to 12 years and the child think more rationally about the objects he sees or with which he can work. <span>The formal operational stage occurs after 12 years and at this stage, the thought is more rational and operations can be performed in an abstract way.
I hope this information can help you.
</span></span>
Answer:the process of the world shrinking and becoming more connected
Explanation:
Answer:
<h3>I think this might help you</h3><h3>
Explanation:</h3><h3 />
<h3>With the flu season swiftly approaching and the H1N1 already affecting large numbers across the world, New Hampshire faces the possibility of a flu epidemic. In such an instance, what action would the state or federal government take? The possibility of a massive quarantine gets thrown around every time a flu epidemic exists, but is such an action an infringement of the rights of individuals living in a free nation? Or is the common good of preventing the spread of infection more important?
</h3><h3>
</h3><h3>Even the current health care debate reflects the tension between individual rights and the common good. Over the past months New Hampshire town halls have been crowded with individuals taking a side in the individual rights/common good debate. Some have expressed the view that health care initiatives are in the interest of a healthier state and nation. Others claim that compulsory health insurance impedes individuals’ right to the best health care money can buy. Can the individual rights vs. common good debate help us understand some of the ideological tension behind the current health care discussion?
</h3><h3>
</h3><h3>As many of these examples show, this month’s question is largely political, but it can also flow into other areas of thought. There’s the philosophical and moral question of the Donner Party; if you and five others were stranded and starving, and your only hope of getting out alive is to eat the first member who passed away, would you do it to save the rest of the group? There is the question that comes up around the disabled. Do you build special infrastructure to accommodate the few who are disabled even if that meant the cost to do this would jack up prices. Then there is the commercial/environmental side. What is more important, buying a cheaper car that fits your personal budget and your personal tastes or a more expensive and efficient auto that would help save the environment? What do you think?
</h3>
