The Evolution Conspiracy
- Type:
- Video > Movies
- Files:
- 4
- Size:
- 199.32 MB
- Spoken language(s):
- English
- Texted language(s):
- English
- Tag(s):
- Evolution Conspiracy Documentary jeremiah films
- Quality:
- +1 / -1 (0)
- Uploaded:
- Jan 5, 2009
- By:
- huggums537
This documentary is by Jeremiah Films and the full title is: "The Evolution Conspiracy - A quantum leap into the new age". -1988
It is in .flv flash video format and is divided into 3 parts. This is ripped from a VHS T.V. recording.
Attention! You will need to have a media player capable of playing Flash video in order to view these files. You should make sure your media player supports Flash files and also check your configuration settings to make sure it is enabled to play the files.
Don't worry if your media player doesn't support Flash files, because you can always install a free codec pack such as Cole2k or K-lite. (I recommend and use Cole2k) These codec packs install a group of audio and video codecs to your system which enable your media player to play almost any type of audio or video format. Cole2k has a great feature in it's configuration settings which allows you to go through a long list of file formats and choose to disable or enable specific audio and video formats.
Alternatively, you could also consider switching to a free media player that is already known to play almost any audio or video file such as VLC PLAYER or KMPlayer. (Two of the best out there).
Try these suggestions and enjoy the show!
Description from the back cover:
This incredible and controversial documentary traces the history of evolution and contrasts its many theories with the facts supporting Creation. Since the discovery of DNA in the mid 1950's (which provided scientific proof it's impossible for one life form to change into another), the theory of evolution has been in chaos. Yet its promotion in the public school system has become all the more ravenous and deceptive allowing no room for debate. This indoctrination in misinformation has resulted in a number of generations that are now confused and ill prepared to deal logically with the question of origins.
The Evolution Conspiracy takes you behind the scenes where professional educators and men of science candidly confess to evolution's inconsistencies and where horrendous prejudice, blacklisting, and job discrimination result whenever these contradictions are brought to light.
This powerfully informative video details how the evolutionary theory, which was once thought to form the basis of atheism, has now enthusiastically embraced the mystical. Many proponents claim that mankind is on the threshold of a new evolutionary step and that the next phase of our evolution is for us mortals to become gods.
Check out my other torrents! Here: http://thepiratebay.ee/user/huggums537
or also: http://isohunt.com/release?poster=huggums537
Please leave a positive comment and rating if you enjoyed this download. Thanks!
--- File Information ---
File Name: part1of3.flv
File Name (with full path): C:Evolution_Conspiracypart1of3.flv
File886,183
--- Container Information ---
Base Type (e.g "AVI"): Flash Video (.FLV)
Subtype (e.g "OpenDML"):
Interleave (in ms):
Preload (in ms):
Audio alignment("split across interleaves"):
Total System Bitrate (kbps): 0
Bytes Missing (if any):
Number of Audio Streams: 1
--- Video Information ---
Video Codec Type(e.g. "DIV3"): FLV1
Video Codec Name(e.g. "DivX 3, Low-Motion"): Flash/Sorenson
Video Codec Status(e.g. "Codec Is Installed"): Codec Status Undetermined
Duration (hh:mm:ss): 18:45.240
Frame Count: 28145
Frame Width (pixels): 320
Frame Height (pixels): 240
Storage Aspect Ratio("SAR")" 1.333
Pixel Aspect Ratio ("PAR"):
Display Aspect Ratio ("DAR"):
Fields Per Second:
Frames Per Second: 25.013
Pics Per Second: 25.013
Video Bitrate (kbps): 333
MPEG-4 ("MPEG-4" or ""):
B-VOP ("B-VOP" or ""):
QPel ("QPel" or ""):
GMC ("GMC" or ""):
NVOP ("NVOP" or ""):
H264 ("H264" or ""):
Quality Factor (bits/pixel)/frame: 0.173"
MPEG-2 ("MPEG-2" or ""):
Interlaced ("I/L" or ""):
Progressive ("Prog" or ""):
Top Frame First ("TFF" or ""):
Bottom Frame First ("BFF" or ""):
3:2 Pulldown ("3:2" or ""):
Picture-per-field ("PPF" or ""):
--- Aspect Ratio Related ---
Broadcast standard: "PAL" (else blank)
Broadcast standard: "NTSC" (else blank)
src:"VCD", "SVCD", "CVD", or "DVD (else blank):
Instructions to convert to VCD, first part:
Instructions to convert to VCD, second part:
Instructions to convert to SVCD, first part:
Instructions to convert to SVCD, second part:
Instructions to convert to CVD, first part:
Instructions to convert to CVD, second part:
Instructions to convert to DVD, first part:
Instructions to convert to DVD, second part:
Instructions to convert to AVI, first part:
Instructions to convert to AVI, second part:
--- Audio Information ---
MPEG Stream ID (e.g. "0xbd"):
MPEG VOB file Substream(e.g. "0x80"):
Audio Codec (e.g. "AC3"): MPEG-1 Layer 3
Audio Codec Status (e.g. "Codec Is Installed"): Codec Status Undetermined
Audio Sample Rate (Hz): 44100
Audio Bitrate(kbps): 96
Audio Bitrate Type ("CBR" or "VBR"): CBR
Audio Channel Count (e.g. "2" for stereo): 2
fettsh at 2009-01-06 12:28 CET:
no evolution. yeah right. fucking conspiracy idiots and religious people who doubt it.
no evolution, but hey a god no one can prove exists. good job.
no evolution, but hey a god no one can prove exists. good job.
Funny how the human fits no sapian DNA, yet the Fremason "Theory of Evolution" is accepted as fact, There is not a shred of evidence supporting evolution.
Thanks for the upload,might wake up some "believers"
Thanks for the upload,might wake up some "believers"
Not one shred of evidence supporting evolution? You don't study much do you? Amazing how proud stupid people are of their stupidity...
"HappyHelvete at 2009-01-20 21:37 CET:
Not one shred of evidence supporting evolution? You don't study much do you? Amazing how proud stupid people are of their stupidity..."
You must joking. Name ONE single piece of evidence that life comes from non-life? Name one piece of evidence that reptiles gave rise to birds? Where did the information for feathers come from? Which reptile gene can code for feathers? Tell me how life could have come from a reducing atmosphere when UV light decomposes ammonia (one of the elements essential to this reducing atmosphere)? WITHOUT oxygen there would be no ozone layer (composed of free oxygen) to block the UV light from decomposing the ammonia, and WITH oxygen anything created would be immediately oxidized. Do you see the problem here? WITHOUT oxygen, life would not have been possible and WITH oxygen life would not have been possible. Your misrepresentations fall flat.
It remains that there is not ONE shred of evidence for MACROevolution. It never happened. Please come back and give me your evidences so I can show you how silly they are. What are you going to say? Fruit flies? Microbial resistance to antibiotics? Fossils? Alleged fusion of chromosome 2 in apes? Actually, these are all non issues for Creationists.
Let's look at the fruit fly argument. So you are able to produce a fruit fly with an extra set of wings. First of all, there are NO flight muscles on those wings. Thus, those wings are deleterious to the fly and he WILL die. You see, no matter how many wings you get a fruit fly to gain after nuking it, it's still a fruit fly and it will NOT breed and pass on that defected gene to its ancestors! He would be dead because he would not be able to escape predation or find food. Also, he already had the gene for wings, so no new information there. Come again. Now, bacterial resistance to antibiotics? Well, they already possessed the resistance and they simply pass it on to the next population. NO animal can voluntarily change its DNA sequence to suit its environment. That is simply a lie or you are misinformed about biology. Genes are not smart, they do not have an awareness of what is necessary for survival of a population. They do not say, Oh, look. There is a chemical introduced into our population, so we have to evolve resistance to it.? Besides all this, even after the bacterial resistance is passed on to the next population, it?s STILL a bacterium. It did not evolve into a cockroach. Resistance to antibiotics or any resistance proves squat. You mean each year when I get the flu and I develop a resistance to the previous flu, I am evolving into another species? Do you see how foolish this argument is?
Fossils? Absolutely NO fossil is evidence for macro-evolution. Why? Just how do you know that that animal passed on its genes to the next generation? How do you know it's not the last of a mutated animal that could not survive? This is a much more plausible situation since we see it all the time. For example, we have bones of two headed turtles. Does this mean that it's a missing link between a population of turtles with two heads and slowly over time they lost that second head and now only have one? That is just a nonsensical argument.
Alleged fusion of chromosome 2? It could very well be argued that chromosome 2 did not fuse in apes, but split into two for humans, and this could have arisen as a result of human interaction with apes. Whether or not the chromosome fused or split, it could have been caused by other factors. Bacterial or viral infections could have easily caused this change or it could simply be a coincidence.
The fact is there is NO evidence at all for evolution. Macro-evolution simply never happened in the past and it CANNOT happen today. It is simply a scientific impossibility.
Not one shred of evidence supporting evolution? You don't study much do you? Amazing how proud stupid people are of their stupidity..."
You must joking. Name ONE single piece of evidence that life comes from non-life? Name one piece of evidence that reptiles gave rise to birds? Where did the information for feathers come from? Which reptile gene can code for feathers? Tell me how life could have come from a reducing atmosphere when UV light decomposes ammonia (one of the elements essential to this reducing atmosphere)? WITHOUT oxygen there would be no ozone layer (composed of free oxygen) to block the UV light from decomposing the ammonia, and WITH oxygen anything created would be immediately oxidized. Do you see the problem here? WITHOUT oxygen, life would not have been possible and WITH oxygen life would not have been possible. Your misrepresentations fall flat.
It remains that there is not ONE shred of evidence for MACROevolution. It never happened. Please come back and give me your evidences so I can show you how silly they are. What are you going to say? Fruit flies? Microbial resistance to antibiotics? Fossils? Alleged fusion of chromosome 2 in apes? Actually, these are all non issues for Creationists.
Let's look at the fruit fly argument. So you are able to produce a fruit fly with an extra set of wings. First of all, there are NO flight muscles on those wings. Thus, those wings are deleterious to the fly and he WILL die. You see, no matter how many wings you get a fruit fly to gain after nuking it, it's still a fruit fly and it will NOT breed and pass on that defected gene to its ancestors! He would be dead because he would not be able to escape predation or find food. Also, he already had the gene for wings, so no new information there. Come again. Now, bacterial resistance to antibiotics? Well, they already possessed the resistance and they simply pass it on to the next population. NO animal can voluntarily change its DNA sequence to suit its environment. That is simply a lie or you are misinformed about biology. Genes are not smart, they do not have an awareness of what is necessary for survival of a population. They do not say, Oh, look. There is a chemical introduced into our population, so we have to evolve resistance to it.? Besides all this, even after the bacterial resistance is passed on to the next population, it?s STILL a bacterium. It did not evolve into a cockroach. Resistance to antibiotics or any resistance proves squat. You mean each year when I get the flu and I develop a resistance to the previous flu, I am evolving into another species? Do you see how foolish this argument is?
Fossils? Absolutely NO fossil is evidence for macro-evolution. Why? Just how do you know that that animal passed on its genes to the next generation? How do you know it's not the last of a mutated animal that could not survive? This is a much more plausible situation since we see it all the time. For example, we have bones of two headed turtles. Does this mean that it's a missing link between a population of turtles with two heads and slowly over time they lost that second head and now only have one? That is just a nonsensical argument.
Alleged fusion of chromosome 2? It could very well be argued that chromosome 2 did not fuse in apes, but split into two for humans, and this could have arisen as a result of human interaction with apes. Whether or not the chromosome fused or split, it could have been caused by other factors. Bacterial or viral infections could have easily caused this change or it could simply be a coincidence.
The fact is there is NO evidence at all for evolution. Macro-evolution simply never happened in the past and it CANNOT happen today. It is simply a scientific impossibility.
Organisms containing more varied cell types evolved following increases in atmospheric oxygen.
To build a complex multicellular organism, with all the communication and signalling between cells it entails, you need energy. With no oxygen or mitochondria, complex organisms couldn't get enough of this energy to develop.
Organisms containing more than two or three different cell types appeared soon after the surface environment became oxygenated around 2,300 million years ago. This was around the same time that cells became able to extract the energy from oxygen, thanks to the emergence of mitochondria.
Life forms became even more complex following the evolution of organelles able to produce oxygen. Plastids, such as chloroplasts found in plants, evolved around 1,500 million years ago. During the following 500 million years, organisms that contained up to 50 different cell types evolved.
Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one ? the only difference between them is of time and scale. However, it should be noted that time is not a necessary distinguishing factor ? macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in macroevolution occurring over a single generation - especially in plants. One of the most significant applications of this is found in the evolution of the vertebrates, which was mediated by duplications of the hox gene complex.
Your other "arguments" just show a basic misunderstanding of biology and evolution. Evolution does not occur within a living organism, it occurs through spontaneous mutations with occur in individuals during early cellular formation, far before birth.
Organisms which possess a mutation that is beneficial to their survival are more likely to live to pass on their genes. Over time the species changes to have the characteristics of those individuals which had been more likely to survive. Beneficial mutations become part of the species because those organisms in which they occurred live to pass on their genes.
The fossil record provides countless examples of macroevolution over large amounts of geologic time. Different types of animals dominated different time periods through Earth history. Some are still alive today, but most are not.
For example, trilobites, crinoids and brachiopods dominated shallow water environments during the Paleozoic era (approximately 540 million years ago to 250 million years ago). Rocks that were once part of the shallow marine environment of the Paleozoic are peppered with fossils of these creatures that are either extinct or much less common today.
Also the Ape chromosomes fused to create the humans chromosome 2, not the other way around. Evidenced by:
1) The analogous chromosomes (2p and 2q) in the non-human great apes can be shown, when laid end to end, to create an identical banding structure to the human chromosome 2. (1)
2) The remains of the sequence that the chromosome has on its ends (the telomere) is found in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the ancestral chromosomes fused. (2)
3) the detail of this region (pre-telomeric sequence, telomeric sequence, reversed telomeric sequence, pre-telomeric sequence) is exactly what we would expect from a fusion. (3)
4) this telomeric region is exactly where one would expect to find it if a fusion had occurred in the middle of human chromosome 2.
5) the centromere of human chromosome 2 lines up with the chimp chromosome 2p chromosomal centromere.
6) At the place where we would expect it on the human chromosome we find the remnants of the chimp 2q centromere (4).
Not only is this strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also strong evidence for common ancestry; in fact, it is hard to explain by any other mechanism.
To build a complex multicellular organism, with all the communication and signalling between cells it entails, you need energy. With no oxygen or mitochondria, complex organisms couldn't get enough of this energy to develop.
Organisms containing more than two or three different cell types appeared soon after the surface environment became oxygenated around 2,300 million years ago. This was around the same time that cells became able to extract the energy from oxygen, thanks to the emergence of mitochondria.
Life forms became even more complex following the evolution of organelles able to produce oxygen. Plastids, such as chloroplasts found in plants, evolved around 1,500 million years ago. During the following 500 million years, organisms that contained up to 50 different cell types evolved.
Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one ? the only difference between them is of time and scale. However, it should be noted that time is not a necessary distinguishing factor ? macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in macroevolution occurring over a single generation - especially in plants. One of the most significant applications of this is found in the evolution of the vertebrates, which was mediated by duplications of the hox gene complex.
Your other "arguments" just show a basic misunderstanding of biology and evolution. Evolution does not occur within a living organism, it occurs through spontaneous mutations with occur in individuals during early cellular formation, far before birth.
Organisms which possess a mutation that is beneficial to their survival are more likely to live to pass on their genes. Over time the species changes to have the characteristics of those individuals which had been more likely to survive. Beneficial mutations become part of the species because those organisms in which they occurred live to pass on their genes.
The fossil record provides countless examples of macroevolution over large amounts of geologic time. Different types of animals dominated different time periods through Earth history. Some are still alive today, but most are not.
For example, trilobites, crinoids and brachiopods dominated shallow water environments during the Paleozoic era (approximately 540 million years ago to 250 million years ago). Rocks that were once part of the shallow marine environment of the Paleozoic are peppered with fossils of these creatures that are either extinct or much less common today.
Also the Ape chromosomes fused to create the humans chromosome 2, not the other way around. Evidenced by:
1) The analogous chromosomes (2p and 2q) in the non-human great apes can be shown, when laid end to end, to create an identical banding structure to the human chromosome 2. (1)
2) The remains of the sequence that the chromosome has on its ends (the telomere) is found in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the ancestral chromosomes fused. (2)
3) the detail of this region (pre-telomeric sequence, telomeric sequence, reversed telomeric sequence, pre-telomeric sequence) is exactly what we would expect from a fusion. (3)
4) this telomeric region is exactly where one would expect to find it if a fusion had occurred in the middle of human chromosome 2.
5) the centromere of human chromosome 2 lines up with the chimp chromosome 2p chromosomal centromere.
6) At the place where we would expect it on the human chromosome we find the remnants of the chimp 2q centromere (4).
Not only is this strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also strong evidence for common ancestry; in fact, it is hard to explain by any other mechanism.
to "gsex": yes, very logical explanation for the fact according the dna-parts in humans and apes, but none said for the reason for this fact - what or better who maded this? do not keep silence about the statement that "...NO animal can voluntarily change its DNA sequence...". i agree in 1000% that "...Genes are not smart..." and the modern science cannot prove or deny this. so the biggest and importantest question, which You carefully escape is: who maded this changes in dna structures? who switched on one more spiral in the dna of the next human-like specie - the indigo humans? only when we do not want to be blind to facts we can see the whole picture around. and for common pitty this is not in the possibilities of all sorts of dogma- and axiom- keepers, all of them, be them religious or scientific. wish to You to step beyond the todays science and look the whole world without fear and prejudices. for beginning try to accept the hypothesis that genes are not smart and animals cannot (till now) change at will their own dna and all changes are made by other intelligent creatures, born before us humans and advanced before us. same like the different ways of advancing of european settlers in north america compared to the "advancing" of slavonic people in north asia. it is unlogical and antiscientific that the earth is flat like coin and that only here on earth exists live, yes? wish You piece, light and thruth.
cybershaman, you are an idiot.
"NO animal can voluntarily change its DNA sequence"
Obviously, no animal voluntarily changes it's DNA, that isn't what evolution is. I'm not going to go through any of your other points because that sentence that you wrote shows just how ignorant you are of what evolution actually is.
And tamarind said the same thing:
"NO animal can voluntarily change its DNA sequence to suit its environment. "
I like how GSEX went point by point and shot down all of your arguments. And a very friendly rebuttal too.
Take a science class someday, maybe you'll learn a little.
"NO animal can voluntarily change its DNA sequence"
Obviously, no animal voluntarily changes it's DNA, that isn't what evolution is. I'm not going to go through any of your other points because that sentence that you wrote shows just how ignorant you are of what evolution actually is.
And tamarind said the same thing:
"NO animal can voluntarily change its DNA sequence to suit its environment. "
I like how GSEX went point by point and shot down all of your arguments. And a very friendly rebuttal too.
Take a science class someday, maybe you'll learn a little.
Comments