What do these things have in common in a scientific view point?
122272
They're all full of water!
292476
while i cant give you scientific terms, the best short answer i can give is that they are all forms of energy.
157641
There is no proven connection at this time, hence it being a "theory." There are definite similarities, like we share 93% of the same genetic similarities with orangutans.
18276
The search for the explanation of what we observe.
460594
communication problems or clashing of ideas
556783
Sure, it makes logical sense as an idea. But how helpful are these categories in reasoning? I dont imagine that they would be very helpful at all since it is very unlikely to ever find two things that are exactly alike. They might look alike but dont forget about the very subatomic particles which comprise them. Just food for thought.
580446
thought, knowledge, reason, observation
994
It's kind of like the difference in the glass is half-empty or the glass is half-full. Some folks prefer to express themselves in terms of differences. Other people choose similarities. \n\nLogically if two things are the same then they have the same differences from everything that is not the objects under question. So the "same thing" must have the "same difference[s]".
577112
I would do something like this:\n\n* Similarities and differences among living organisms\n(For example, the characteristics of life, cells, comparing single and multicellular organisms)\n*Homeostasis in living things\n(Basic biochemical processes, Feedback systems, Disease)\n*Genetics\n(Heredity, Genes)\n*Reproduction and development\n(Cell division, reproduction among organisms)\n*Evolution\n(Theories)\n*Ecology\n(Interaction between organisms and their environments, energy flow)\n\nThese are just a few ideas.
370129
Of course, they co-exist.  Who do you think invented science?  God, of course.\n(Brace yourself for a lot of flak from those who say I'm an ignoramus, but I suspect most of that will come from people who haven't studied all that much science).
282872
Do you believe … ?\n\nBelief in One Theory\n\nAs soon as these words are uttered, a great and unfortunate polarization tends to occur.  So many take the position that “my idea is all correct and your idea is all wrong.”  These ideas can be labeled as theories, doctrines, or whatever; they challenge us to examine our ideas and the views of others.  If we are insecure, we prefer to dismiss the viewpoints of others rather than examine our own.  However, if we are emotionally mature, we tend to be willing to review our own position and seek the merit in the perspective of others.  Such emotional maturity was once defined as “I am what I am, nothing better, nothing worse, and I find it good.”  This non-competitive stance is essential for open-minded pursuit of truth and knowledge.\n\nAny one who knows about blueprints, mechanical drafting, or architecture understands that it takes at least 3 different viewpoints to be able to accurately understand and recreate anything.  The most commonly used are the top, side, and front views.  For example, a table from the top view is a long and wide rectangle.  From the front view it is narrow and long.   From the side view it is narrow and short.  It is fruitless to argue that any one of these perspectives is false.\n\nIn layman’s terms, we might say that the sky is blue.  Someone else that it is orange.  In comprehensive reality, we can admit that it is sometimes blue and sometimes orange; indeed, sometimes it can be both at the same time.\n\nScientists may argue that light consists of waves, not particles.  Other scientists might insist that light is made of particles, not waves.  However, many modern scientists are beginning to embrace the necessity of models that include both these concepts.  Moreover, the characteristics of something do not have to be restricted to only 2 or 3 substantiated theories or viewpoints; a deep understanding of things may involve a panoramic examination of multiple views, like a spinning and swerving car in a television commercial.\n\nWith that foundation, we have been asked by the author and responders to consider which view: the Big Bang Theory, the Big Crunch, or God created our universe.  To this, I am inclined to answer “perhaps all of the above.”  Let me point out the relative merits of each position briefly and how they could possibly harmonize.\n\nThe Big Bang\n\nThe Big Bang Theory remains the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe.  The red shift of light from distant nebulas proves that everything is moving away from a starting point, an expanding universe.  The fact that there is a relationship between these celestial objects speed and their distance reinforces their common origin.  If true, there should be cosmic background radiation, and there is.  Physics tends to support the details of the theory including the cooling that may have lead to the sequential creation of matter and antimatter particles, including quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos and photons.  Similarly, the relative properties of the basic elements tend to support their sequential development, including deuterium (heavy hydrogen), tritium and helium.  The ratio of one helium atom for every ten or eleven atoms of hydrogen is a constant in the universe today.\n\nUnresolved problems with this theory are the age of the universe and the basis on a “singularity” (an event which defies current rules of physics).   Also, while the Big Bang Theory defines an event of creation, it does not define what caused it to happen.\n\nThe Big Crunch\n\nIf the total gravitational force of all matter is high enough, it would slow the expansion of the universe, and then reverse it, causing the Big Crunch of everything, the opposite of the big expansion called the Big Bang. All matter and energy would be compressed back into a gravitational singularity.  This theory does not explain what would happen after this event, which may occur in about 42 billion
342641
ALL OF THEM REALLY BUT C WOULD BE IT \nIT'S PARTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
567437
How about this, as a point to life: The point is to create more like-minded individuals. That is the meaning. This can be universally agreed upon by varying religions, skeptics, political affiliations, capitalists, socialists, races, etc. Those categories of description, the ways we identify ourselves- they give us the "end-game" of what we believe finally. What you subscribe to, defines meaning.
104539
Well, I've never heard of Leonard Begy before, but he certainly has a point.  God and Science, or religion and science, are two different viewpoints on much of the same phenomena.  Science is necessarily materialistic in approach; God and religion are primarily non-materialistic.  Therefore, while they may be describing similar or even the same phenomena, they do so in different ways.  One is not more or less true than the other; they are not comparable.
578937
When considering a viewpoint, I want to first know the other side and so I agree  with you on that, what I think happens is that if your opinions are to one sided they may be a symptom of not fully understanding the sociological, cultural and political "peace" \nthat is not found in the extreme poles of the other, I think there is no safe zone or a perfect sense of things only a neutral zone whereby one understands the meaninglessness of controversy.\n\nSimple psychology I think plays a big part in life it is profoundly ironic that few acquire this virtue of none being. This most simple of human trait is the reason ignorants persists in human nature.
602851
If you know any scientists personally... they will pretty much tell you that it's a majority...not everyone, but there are all kind of crazy ideas in the outer realms of science that are minority beliefs...\n\nbut, just because a majority of the scientists think that it's true, doesn't mean that it is... it just means that all the current evidence points in one direction... that is one thing science proves over and over again...
503079
Check  the link of the source. You see that there are some disagreement