Still incapable of answering a question without asking one I see...
You were the one that, by dancing around my first question, (and now this one) asserted that any agreement with ANTI-religious belief equals “honest, sincere, objective”...
that’s still your bag not mine.
Try to focus, can science only be science and only be honest or sincere when it’s obviously anti-religious, or only done by secular humanists?
If you’re going to go on demanding Christians and their ideas be be kept out of science class, or any public enterprise for that matter, the least you could do is explain why your position is more beneficial to science, or is somehow the right path to take, etc.
After reading several AGW papers of those who have been labeled skeptics I have personally come to the conclusion that AGW is bunk. I came to that conclusion from what I term “sincere” science presented to me from various sources whose data disagrees significantly with the propaganda that Mr. Hansen has been spewing.
“You were the one that, by dancing around my first question, (and now this one) asserted that any agreement with ANTI-religious belief equals “honest, sincere, objective”...”
Your chop-logic is limp and pointless.
If you have nothing better to do than make asinine assumptions such as:
“If you’re going to go on demanding Christians and their ideas be be kept out of science class, or any public enterprise for that matter, the least you could do is explain why your position is more beneficial to science, or is somehow the right path to take, etc.”
I will no longer feel a need to respond to your posts.