>The Earth is round (oblate spheroids are round)
>The Moon landings are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>'The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Newtonian Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Quantum Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Special and General Relativity are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>The Standard Model of particle physics is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Big Bang cosmology (The Lambda-CDM model) is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Darwinian evolution is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Faster-than-light communication is impossible
>Perpetual motion machines, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.
>Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans
>Vaccines are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>"I don't understand this" or "this doesn't make sense to me" are not legitimate criticisms of established scientific theories. It only shows that you don't know what you're talking about
>Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give correct answers *and* be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment, where it should outperform current scientific theory

For the know-it-alls who will undoubtedly start arguing about "correct and incomplete": By "correct" we mean that the theory correctly predicts the outcomes of experiments and does not differ appreciably from reality within the theory's domain of validity. "Incomplete" means that the theory's domain of validity does not encompass the entire universe. If you want to argue this, first read this popsci article > http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm