> The Earth is round. (Yes oblate spheroids are round.)
> The Moon landings happened and space travel is real.
> 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.
> Perpetuum mobiles, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.
> Likewise, it is impossible to extract work from the zero-point energy of the vacuum.
> Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
> Approved vaccines are safe and effective.
> "I don't understand this" or "this doesn't make sense to me" are not legitimate criticisms of established scientific theories. The fact that the universe is not simple enough for you to understand is your failing, not the universe's.
> 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 those who will undoubtedly start arguing about "correct and incomplete": With "correct" I 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 > http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm