Trust the Science, right? It's been claimed to me before that there are just so many -- hundreds and even thousands -- of proofs for evolution. And other equally evil and blasphemous theories, such as a certain one which was of Greek origin and then was revamped by the "Holy" Roman Empire/Jesuits/Edomites in around the 1400s...
So, The ExpertsTM say that raw cow milk is dangerous and potentially toxic. Many can attest to its superiority over pasteurized (named after a scammer known as Louis Pasteur, who was pretty much a snake-oil salesman in his day) milk, but I'd just like to highlight the insanity of this thinking.
The controllers employed even for such a minute thing as cow milk a psyop. They used their classic "problem reaction solution" tactic as follows: "Cow milk, the way everyone has drunk it since the creation of the world is flawed. We have a new, innovative approach to this already perfectly fine thing. Give us money for it. Anyone who does it the old way is a criminal."
Just look at the blasphemy: they are so depraved that every single thing which God created is "imperfect." They must improve everything. The body is imperfect; we need vaccines. Milk is imperfect; we need to pasteurize (named after a con artist) it. Food is imperfect; we need to genetically modify it. Sunlight is imperfect; wear sun-block. Our minds are imperfect; we need The Experts to decide for us what's true. Etc., etc...
Charles Darwin, the son of a Freemason (I believe) who was the son of a Freemason, and a Freemason himself, saw lifeforms on earth and said, "These all must have come from a common ancestor." But all the evidence is crap. Falacious bullcrap.
One main evidence is "Lifeforms on earth all share similarities," but that proves nothing because it's also explained by God having created everything with similar traits. Why would God reinvent the brain, heart, leg, bone, hair, ear, eye, etc. thousands of different times?
And they call evolution "science." But what is science? The scientific method is an EMPIRICAL method to determine the cause of an effect by varying the cause (the independent variable). For evolution, where's the EMPIRICAL observations? Where are the EXPERIMENTS and the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE?? All there is are stories, only an effect with no way to test/vary the cause. And digging up bones isn't an experiment either. Science can ONLY deal with the present, not the past, not the distant realms we have no access to; only what we can vary and interact with. Because the "origin of species" is a distant past, we have no way to vary or test it.
It's pseudoscience, made up fairy-tails to deny God (and to make us believe that our bodies are imperfect and flawed).
---------------------------------------------------------
In the comments of THIS post, someone, a "sceptic" (not an accurate label at all) said, "[T]here is global [what 'globe'?] scientific consensus backed by a myriad of peer-reviewed research." This was meant to be about evolution.
What about all the 'scientists' (really, researchers) who disagree (so, no consensus, since those who disagree are shunned/mocked)? [Edit: like this video, where it shows that many in the field do not accept the Darwinian myth. So where's the 'consensus'?]
What about the fact that evolution/creation is not even in the purvue of science (the scientific method)?
A myriad of research? Even mountains of vacuous evidence doesn't mean anything.
Peer-reviewed? That basically just means people who already agree with them, a big circle-jerk. What about those -- again -- who disagree?
Horrible.