Answer:
The beginning of the earth, along with the birth of humans is one of the biggest and most contentious issues among creationists and evolutionists. Scientific theory holds the opinion that the universe is eternal, while the Bible states that there is a beginning. It has been proven that there was an official beginning; the question that arises is when that exact beginning took place, a time where there was neither time nor space nor matter. Christianity uses the Old Testament to describe the beginning of life. In the span of six days, God created the heavens, the earth, the sun, moon, water, animals, and ended with the finalé of human beings. Other major events such as Noah’s flood occurred along the lifespan of the earth, accounting for the distribution of fossils and the formation of the earth’s layers Evolution is defined as “the development by natural causes of all organisms, those today and those yesterday, from other forms probably ultimately much simpler and originally perhaps from non-living substances. According to evolutionists, the earth began approximately 4.5 billion years ago, with the explosion of life beginning around 55 million years ago. To evolutionists, the starting of life began as inorganic molecules that underwent a natural transformation (through electricity or heat) to become organic molecules. These building blocks joined to form macromolecule chains that eventually made up organisms.
C, because it is ultimately the cause of his death, he was told to not fly too high but in his excitement and arrogance he flew higher and higher until his death was inescapable.
Answer:
a story about athens or spartucus. one of them is right.
Explanation:
Answer:
B
Explanation:
It really depends on what was underlined. There are two possibilities.
- I think that not a single peace loving State could decline a peace treaty with a neighboring State even though the latter was headed by such fiends and cannibals as Hitler and Ribbentrop.
- Non-aggression pacts are pacts of peace between two States. It was such a pact that Germany proposed to us in 1939.
The first one is irony of the highest order. Though Stalin was correct in his assessment of Hitler and Ribbentrop, he didn't include himself (who may have been the worst of the three), in his description.
The second one is just a definition of what a non-aggression pact was.
I would pick B. The real problem is what is underlined. B is the truth. It was actually Hitler's plan to invade Russia long before it happened. Not only that, he was so confident of victory that he did not order his textile industry to make protective clothing when he did invade Russia. He thought it would be over in Russia long before such clothing was needed.
