[Dimensio]

There's more to it than that. Evolutionism poisons morality, politics, and science equally.

How? It shouldn't be poisoning anything other than science (and only then if evolution is demonstratably false). It's a biological theory -- applying it to your views of politics or morality is misapplying it; it isn't evolution's fault if it alters how you view morality or politics, it's your own for applying a biological theory to a construct that isn't biology! It's like trying to use gravitational theory to decide what colour car to purchase!

The state of denial you see from official science bastians when cities are discovered beneath the waves off Cuba, under the Antarctic ice, and on Mars, arises from the fact that these things are all incompatible with the uniformitarian/evolutionist paradigm.

I've not seen massive waves of denial about the cities under Cuba, just some dissention -- which is common in science (that's why you have peer review). I've not heard about cities under Antartica or on Mars. Nonetheless, finding cities anywhere doesn't disprove evolution. I cannot fathom how discovering buried "lost cities" would somehow falsify evolution. Archeaology is not biology.

[medved]

I cannot fathom how discovering buried "lost cities" would somehow falsify evolution.

Recent images from Cydonia and other Martian areas present an insoluble conundrum for NASA and JPL researchers.

What drives the basic instinct of NASA and JPL to deny these stories and try to claim the images are showing natural formations? One possible motive which has been suggested involves the division of funding between manned and unmanned space missions at NASA and JPL.

But, more realistically, the major problem which the Cydonia findings presents to the people in these agencies is one of basic scientific paradigms. Nobody could build all of this stuff on this kind of a megalithic scale with space-suits on; the planet has to be habitable for Cydonia to get built. This is a huge problem, in that it would require a totally different basic theory of the history of our solar system from the one which the scientists have. There is simply no way, given the standard paradigm, in which Mars could have ever been habitable. It would always have been too cold, and it would never have had the gravity necessary to hold a livable atmosphere, assuming that gravity is the only thing which ever holds atmosphere to planets.

The standard scientific axiomatic scheme including the basic doctrine of uniformitarianism, evolution etc. etc. does not allow for solar-system-wide catastrophes within the age of man, nonetheless, that is precisely what we have here. Those newer face images are definitely modern people and not early hominids. Nothing involving modern people here, on Mars, or anywhere else figures to be millions of years gone by, and nothing capable of destroying the planet next to us and making a dead world of it would have gone unnoticed by our ancestors.

What we have here is another case of junk science, i.e. the theory of evolution and the doctrine of uniformity, destroying research and logical thinking amongst scientists. The science pages of our journals are filled by descriptions of NASA projects to search for microbes on Mars while studiously ignoring major evidence that they have found a city there, as if germs were important, and cities were not.