File: 1757381435715909.jpg (282 KB, 828x714)

282 KB JPG

>Physical objects will never be able to achieve speeds approaching the speed of light.
Macroscopic objects? Probably not, I agree. If you consider particles physical objects then I do not agree.
>Time travel by physical objects, including living things, is not even theoretically possible.
It's theoretically possible to travel to the future "faster" (by theoretical, I mean in SR and GR in various ways, practically it's impossible for us).
>With existing technology, it would take 6,300 years to reach the nearest star.
OK
>Reincarnation is meaningless since there is no credible evidence of a previous life.
Why?
>There is no credible evidence for any sort of life after death.
I agree, although there's no credible evidence of a lot of things, including your own subjective existence. That's an undeniable fact regardless (or mine is, from my point of view).
>All living things on earth are related and descend from a single micro-organism.
Is this really a harsh truth?
>It took 2 billion years for the first land-based organism to appear.
OK
>Lunar tidal action is the most likely reason for life on the land.
It's one factor but you can hardly say "life on the land" has a single reason. It might be the case that it wouldn't have happened without lunar tide action. I don't see how you could prove that though.

Overall 3/10 see me after class (but not if I see you first)

>>17005572
>With existing technology, it would take 6,300 years to reach the nearest star.
Well we better start moving then.