Sorry, but naked links bother me - if you don’t have anything to say about it, then why should it be worth my time?
I was just posting the latest RTB Hugh Ross stuff for the group. I agreed to be more balanced in what I posted so I post science, RTB, ID, YEC and TE stuff of interest. Regarding RTB’s Hugh Ross is usually very good on the science. It is a really good summary of recent scientific findings. All you got to do is to delete the last line where he says “God did it”.
You are trying to avoid commentary that creates unnecessary conflict. Thanks.
Perhaps add some key quotes? That might be a good compromise.
Well for Hugh Ross’ material, I can add the key quote right now - “God did it” And the Bible says it here, here, and here in a very cryptic way.
Sorry if I was grouchy.
My point is, in a shared space like this forum, good content means describing what is behind the link so readers can make an informed decision about how to spend their time. That’s not such a big deal if it’s just one or two posts a day, but it’s a big problem as the forum grows and that becomes 40+ posts a day. No reader (and no moderator) can keep up with “firehose” content streams, so it helps if people provide the essential information to guide readers to their interests.
Ok, I will limit my new topics just to the really good and important new insights and stories. Less quantity and better quality and relevance to PS.
I should add that any topic you can explain in a way that makes it relevant, IS relevant. It’s not always the topic, but what you have to say about it and the discussion it starts that make it interesting!