"No. 'Hats off to X' is an imperative which indicates to the audience 'Gentlemen, let us now raise our hats in a salute to the fine folks at USC'.
...indicating that you agree with me.
What's that you say? You didn't agree with me? Oh. I suppose, in the interest of courtesy, I'm required to assume you meant what you wrote. In that case, I'd have to repeat that the original poster also should be assumed to have meant what he wrote when he wrote "hat's off to you", and not "hats off to you"[1].
You can't claim that I sang "Mary had a Little Lamb" out of tune by arguing that you "know" that I was truly attempting to sing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat". Similarly, I am not making any questionable assumptions about what you intended when you stated that the poster made a grammatical error - I am only arguing that your statement was factually incorrect. To be both petty and incorrect is egregiously fuckwitted.
[1] Lest you object, I'll point out that there's no Royal Academy of Common English Expressions.
"Hat's off to you" and "Hats off to you" are both perfectly fine. "Hat's off to you" is intended to be "my hat is off to you" with the "my" elided. "Hat is off to you" is not exactly what was intended, but it's still grammatically correct.
Prove to me that your consuming habits dominate the description of your behavior in civil society less than your habits of "citizenship" (your preferred designation).
You and Anonymous Coward mistakenly assume that my criticism implies that I value consumerism, and that I criticized you to defend it. Not so.
I criticized you because your demand to be referred to as a "citizen" and not a "consumer" is a dishonest affectation that is morally repugnant.
Whether or not economics is offensively reductionist in the way that you claim, the question has no bearing on whether or not economics is inherently "consumerist". And, in fact, it is not. If anything, economics is probably more generally hostile to consumerism than it is friendly, because "consumption", in its negative connotation, involves waste.
And there are no few of those who would respond to your affectation of "citizen" over "consumer" by pointing out that such a view of yourself is only marginally less impoverished and sterile.
Truth told, I myself prefer "citizen" over "consumer". But to make an issue of it is only to underscore the inherent hypocrisy of doing so.
Years ago, in my early twenties, I recall working at a retail store and having a woman angrily refuse a small plastic bag for her purchase. "Have you been to the Navajo reservation?" she asked. "Plastic bags blown in the wind line the bottoms of fences! It's disgusting!"
Maybe so, I thought, but I hated her with a deep intensity as she left the store and got into her fucking automobile and drove away. Having a car is a huge convenience for her, as it is to most Americans. Never mind the huge environmental toll it takes on the world. Only conspicuous non-consumption that's convenient for her, of course, and so many like her.
Yes, the little things you do are better than nothing. But, if you live even remotely like an average American, they are in the end only that: little things. Don't flatter yourself with a conspicuous public virtue - it's narcissistic and false. The words you use and "permit" others to use are incredibly less significant than how you actually live your life.
You're right, but keep in mind that the post you were responding to was itself responding to a post talking about looking at the image of the site in a mirror. This led me, along with (I'm sure) Loligo probably, to assume that the poster meant that the weird effect was caused by the reversed image. But of course, the parentheses are outward facing in both the original page and the optical mirror image.
I'm sorry, but the mere fact that you're posting to Slashdot greatly increases the probability that one of your dominant characteristics is your consuming behavior, relative to the behavior of most of the rest of the world's population now and in the past.
You are a consumer. Unless you have radically altered your behavior, don't pretend otherwise.
Unfortunately if you study the Dell main and auxiliary connector pinouts I've listed here and compare them to the industry standard ATX pinouts listed earlier, you'll see that not only are the voltage and signal positions changed, but the number of terminals carrying specific voltages and grounds has changed as well.
It's not clear to me that a good ISA power supply would avoid destroying the mb or itself in this case.
Your glib, willfully ignorant advice, then, will have the effect of encouraging Dell owners that vaguely remember it to spend more money and have it go up in smoke. What they probably won't remember is the name of the jerk that gave them the bad advice. Too bad.
"...which at least includes reading works like GEB, I believe genetic algorithms are a flawed approach."
It's odd that you mention only "GEB" in that statement of your opinion, since it's much more plausibly a counter-argument to your point than one that supports it.
Hofstadter wrote GEB before complexity theory had really gotten off the ground, but he was very much in sync with its ideas. His main thesis regarding intelligence is that it's an emergent property of a complex system. If you look at complexity theory research, there's a lot of interest in evolved systems, including genetic algorithms, simple because the very nature of a complex system defies a reductionist goal-oriented design from first principles.
I don't think that we will likely ever be able to reductionisticaly design an AI "equal" to our own intelligence. (By "equal", I really mean "comparable" qualitatively.) I think it is far more likely that we'll achieve something intelligent as the result of an evolved complex system selected for intelligence as we understand it. However, once we are able to evolve a huge variety of comparable but different intelligences, it may be that we will be better equipped to study them comparatively and generalize about intelligence.
At any rate, I think that evolved complex adaptive systems are by far the most promising means to achieve AI, eventually. Strong AI from the traditional first-principle, designed point of view is, in my opinion, a lost cause (for now).
I like the ossblacksheep thing. It's been years since I looked at Cygwin - I found it pretty frustrating at the time. I found David Korn's "U/Win" much mre complete and integrated. I even bought the commercial product. Has Cygwin closer to parity with U/Win now?
Okay, I have a question. I've also been a poor dancer, which seems strange since I'm a percussionist. But, over the years, I've become pretty convinced that good dancing is a lot more about the groove than the beat. I get all caught up in trying to make my body reflect the rythmn of the music, which is far too technical. So, I'm wondering: does DDR appeal to that technical adherence to a rythmn in contrast to real dancing?
This comment was incorrectly modded as "flamebait". I'm not sure why (was the moderator thinking of "National Review"?). The comment itself is mostly correct.
TNR is one of the oldest journals of opinion in the US - it's well over a hundred years old. The poster may have meant "old school" in this sense. It's always been identified as "liberal".
However, it's never really been what progressives would describe as "progressive"; and for that reasons, leftists themselves tend to see TNR as a conservative wolf in liberal sheep's clothing.
It's probably best characterized as "moderate". But it's moved around a but. For example, under Andrew Sullivan's editorship in the early 90s - which was mercifuly brief - it lurched to the right.
That said, John Judis is fairly liberal. I'm very socially liberal but moderate economically. I was that happy with the article, really, since to me it seemed that although it gets right the essential facts of why the current situation is so messed up; he's short on details of proposed remedies and also too optimistic about the benefits of regulation. His biggest problem is in his whole "last mile" argument where he seems to think that the comms providers have been negligent - though he seems to be completely ignorant of the fact that the "last mile" accounts for 80% of all the network mileage. He makes it sound like the comms companies converted most of their networks and then just inexplicably stopped. No, they stopped where it would become most expensive without any real indication of a demand on the part of the end-user for optical over that last mile.
I'm a former subscriber to TNR, but I am not that happy with this article.
...poking your noses in other people's networks without permission or through legal means...
I'm sympathetic to you frustration with the distorted ethics often seen around these parts. In this case, however, your criticism is mistaken: the author spcifically disabled the IP stack on the XP laptop to ensure that no such intrusion could take place, even inadvertently.
Well, I could email an ex who was an astronomer at the VLA, but it's more fun to ask here. Simon, since you're the only person who's spoken up here who seems to have much of a clue, perhaps you could answer my question. (And I ask it here also so that the answer can shed some light on this stuff for people who only know about SETI.)
What's the difference between what is referred to as the baseline in a VLBA, and what we're talking about here? If you increase the baseline, you increase the "aperture", right? But that doesn't increase the sensitivty, right? Is the real advantage of a huge array of dishes designed and operated as one telescope (as opposed to an ad hoc assembly) the things that are involved in this story -- i.e., data communication bandwidth and control?
I ask this because I had kind of taken for granted that the real future of radio astronomy was going to be something like an array made out of many dishes in very high orbits...
Geez, as much of a supporter of SETI as I am, I feel the need to as if you folks do know, don't you, that a radio telescope is good for other things -- you know, like astronomy?
Probably a better way to convince is to point out that "spelt" is one of the many differences in acceptable spelling between the US and British English.
"Spelt" looks horribly wrong to me. Which is odd, since quite a few other Brit spellings look quite alright (even strange ones). I assume that many of these spellings are acceptable to me because I've seen them. So why haven't I seen "spelt" (enough)? Ah, well, too many shaky assumptions in my chain of reasoning. Maybe "spelt" looks especially wrong because it sounds differently, too.
I think some of you people are being plain dishonest. I have heard directly from several people that they've not bought a CD, or that they've bought perhaps only a small handful of CDs, since they started downloading MP3s. One of them, a close friend, I know for a fact reduced his CD buying habits enormously. It's not that everything he gets on MP3 he would have otherwise bought; but that most of what he would have bought he hasn't.
I mean, c'mon. There is some middle ground (called "reality") between the RIAA's inflated numbers and claiming that there's pretty much no one that's not buying CDs anymore because they can get the music for free. It's spooky to me that people would feel the need to go out of their way to claim something as absurd as "it's not having a negative effect on CD sales at all". Yeah, right.
Being dishonest like this just gives more ammunition to the RIAA and friends.
In my case, out of a collection of about 1,500 MP3s (nothing by most/.ers standards), no more than 20 or 30 are stuff I don't own. And of the music I have bought in the last two years, at least a small part of it is stuff I probably wouldn't have bought had I not heard it from an MP3. But I'm the only person I know with a significantly large MP3 collection that is made up of almost exclusively stuff that's legal. So I'm skeptical.
I should have answered this in my other post.
You wrote:
Except the count of heads and tails is *not* as likely. Others have covered this.
...which is true. But tgibbs wasn't talking about that.
That every possible sequence of coin tosses of, say, 100 coins is equally likely is not inconsistent with the fact that all counts of heads and tails within that sequence are not equally likely. It is far more unlikely to get all heads, say, than it is to get 50 heads and 50 tails.
You may think -- and you may claim -- that you were objecting to tgibbs and other people asserting that 100 heads is just as likely as every other distribution of heads and tails. But tgibbs nor anyone else asserted such a thing.
But, again, you directly contradicted the first of those two correct assertions above; and that was an egregious error on your part. It's no excuse to claim that you were correcting an error that was not explicitly made -- especially when what was explicitly and quite simply asserted is true on an elementary level, and where there's no evidence but your own prejudice that there was an implicit error (the mentioned in the previous paragraph) on tgibbs's part.
When you say to me that I'm "misrepresenting the point", I can only guess that you mean that everyone here knows that the argument is really all about (metaphorically) that distribution of heads and tails -- not the likliehood of a particular sequence -- and that your argument is that evolution shows (metaphorically) 100 heads, which is pretty unlikely compared to the expected 50 heads and 50 tails....and so that is evidence of a creator.
But it's not clear to me that everyone here knows that any signficance to be found would be in the distriubtion of heads and tails, and not the exact sequence. This isn't obvious to me because from the beginning, tgibbs and others have pointed out that you'd have to be able to quantify in some way what the other distributions are likely to be. Firstly, the distribution isn't random -- unlike coin tosses, future genetic states are dependent upon past genetic states. In that sense, you can eliminate almost every other exact sequence of genetic changes because they're not possible. So you can't compare "this" one (the one that we're arguing about, the only one we have as an example) to those.
Secondly, well, hell....this is really stupid thing to be arguing about anyway. One thing that's very true, if carefully understood, is that you can't calculate a probability for a past event. The probability for a past event is 1. It's certain.
This sort of exercize is sophistry, or madness, or both. That you feel that it proves anything, and that you can claim that "HTHTHT" is more likely than "HHHHHH" as a sequence of coin tosses, is just, well, depressing.
No, I don't think that I am. As the other gentleman has tried to point out, calculating the significance of the particular sequence of genetic events that got us from there to here is entirely about quantifying, in this context, the exact sort of thing that is different between a straight and a straight flush.
What is being objected to is, metaphorically, that someone has been dealt a hand, they've calculated the odds of being dealt that particular hand, and then they assert that it can't have been randomly dealt since there's only a 1 in 2.5 million chance that that particular hand would have been dealt.
I'll repeat the original quote:
tgibbs wrote:
"No, because every sequence of coins has exactly the same very low probability"
...to which you directly responded:
"Someone who doesn't understand probability, I see."
That's pretty unambiguous. Every sequence of coins (of the same length -- and what the hell else would we be talking about?) does have exactly the same probability of occurance as any other.
When your response is that tgibbs "doesn't understand probability", you can only be asserting that his statement was false. It is not. The only possible conclusions, then, are that either you don't understand probability, you are a sloppy reader or writer, or you aren't entirely honest. These are not mutually exclusive.
Wait, hold on... Hmm. Well, looking at your post, I see:
"The probability of HHHTTT is the same as HTHTHT, the probability is NOT the same as HHHHHH."
...which seems to conclusively demonstrate that you don't, in fact, understand probability. I hope that no one paid you for your tutelage.
Really, you're quite confused about something fundamental. Do you think you're doing some binomial distribution exercize? In this context, sequence matters. "HTHTHT" is not the same "thing" as "HHHTTT". "HTHTHT" and "HHHTTT" and "HHHHHH" and "TTTTTT" and "THHTTT" are all particular, exact sequences; and all are equally likely.
And why do you feel the need to call people names?
Because when one is really, really, really sure that one is Right and Correct when one, in truth, isn't....the world is a very, very frustrating place. This is why insanity is so unpleasant. Be nice to him.
"No, because every sequence of coins has exactly the same very low probability"
Someone who doesn't understand probability, I see.
It's you who doesn't understand probability. Or English. Every particular sequence of coins in a coin toss is as likely as any other, including all heads or all tails. That's basic probability. The only difference between "all heads/tails" and pretty much everything else is that we attach a significance to that all heads/tails sequence that it doesn't inherently have.
A royal flush is no less likely a poker hand than any other.
I went to an unsual school were we do two years of Attic and Homeric Greek and dabble in Koine. No Hebrew, though, so I can't really comment on "Old Testament" stuff. I will say that I was a little surprised and a little dismayed to discover that even my limited education allowed me to translate portions of the "New Testament" (easily!) and discover some pretty serious errors in the King James translation. Really, though, that's not their fault; as the Liddell and Scott at my right hand represents a far more complete scholarship of Greek than the KJ tanslators had.
Anyway, I wrote "dismayed" in the above paragraph because so many Christians I've known accept the King James as just as much the "perfect" inspired "word of God" as the works it was translated from.
My sister, who's now a minister and missionary, about six years ago when she was in with a more, shall we say, "unlearned" crowd, tried to convince me that "logos" meant primarily and exclusively "Word of God". I tried to explain to her that logos was a very, very important word in Greek; and it had several related meanings. She didn't really believe me. This is the problem with religion-based teaching -- it's very narrow but goes to pains to disguise its narrowness so the the student has a tendency both to think they know more than they do, and to misapply what they know.
And this describes so-called "creation science" pretty accurately.
Slashdot Mirror
What's that you say? You didn't agree with me? Oh. I suppose, in the interest of courtesy, I'm required to assume you meant what you wrote. In that case, I'd have to repeat that the original poster also should be assumed to have meant what he wrote when he wrote "hat's off to you", and not "hats off to you"[1].
You can't claim that I sang "Mary had a Little Lamb" out of tune by arguing that you "know" that I was truly attempting to sing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat". Similarly, I am not making any questionable assumptions about what you intended when you stated that the poster made a grammatical error - I am only arguing that your statement was factually incorrect. To be both petty and incorrect is egregiously fuckwitted.
[1] Lest you object, I'll point out that there's no Royal Academy of Common English Expressions.
One of your loved ones was killed on 9/11?
You and Anonymous Coward mistakenly assume that my criticism implies that I value consumerism, and that I criticized you to defend it. Not so.
I criticized you because your demand to be referred to as a "citizen" and not a "consumer" is a dishonest affectation that is morally repugnant.
Whether or not economics is offensively reductionist in the way that you claim, the question has no bearing on whether or not economics is inherently "consumerist". And, in fact, it is not. If anything, economics is probably more generally hostile to consumerism than it is friendly, because "consumption", in its negative connotation, involves waste.
And there are no few of those who would respond to your affectation of "citizen" over "consumer" by pointing out that such a view of yourself is only marginally less impoverished and sterile.
Truth told, I myself prefer "citizen" over "consumer". But to make an issue of it is only to underscore the inherent hypocrisy of doing so.
Years ago, in my early twenties, I recall working at a retail store and having a woman angrily refuse a small plastic bag for her purchase. "Have you been to the Navajo reservation?" she asked. "Plastic bags blown in the wind line the bottoms of fences! It's disgusting!"
Maybe so, I thought, but I hated her with a deep intensity as she left the store and got into her fucking automobile and drove away. Having a car is a huge convenience for her, as it is to most Americans. Never mind the huge environmental toll it takes on the world. Only conspicuous non-consumption that's convenient for her, of course, and so many like her.
Yes, the little things you do are better than nothing. But, if you live even remotely like an average American, they are in the end only that: little things. Don't flatter yourself with a conspicuous public virtue - it's narcissistic and false. The words you use and "permit" others to use are incredibly less significant than how you actually live your life.
You can be sure that they don't block it for their own purposes.
You are a consumer. Unless you have radically altered your behavior, don't pretend otherwise.
Hofstadter wrote GEB before complexity theory had really gotten off the ground, but he was very much in sync with its ideas. His main thesis regarding intelligence is that it's an emergent property of a complex system. If you look at complexity theory research, there's a lot of interest in evolved systems, including genetic algorithms, simple because the very nature of a complex system defies a reductionist goal-oriented design from first principles.
I don't think that we will likely ever be able to reductionisticaly design an AI "equal" to our own intelligence. (By "equal", I really mean "comparable" qualitatively.) I think it is far more likely that we'll achieve something intelligent as the result of an evolved complex system selected for intelligence as we understand it. However, once we are able to evolve a huge variety of comparable but different intelligences, it may be that we will be better equipped to study them comparatively and generalize about intelligence.
At any rate, I think that evolved complex adaptive systems are by far the most promising means to achieve AI, eventually. Strong AI from the traditional first-principle, designed point of view is, in my opinion, a lost cause (for now).
I like the ossblacksheep thing. It's been years since I looked at Cygwin - I found it pretty frustrating at the time. I found David Korn's "U/Win" much mre complete and integrated. I even bought the commercial product. Has Cygwin closer to parity with U/Win now?
Do you go out of your way to present your opinion and mildly interesting information in the most obnoxious manner possible, or is it a gift?
Okay, I have a question. I've also been a poor dancer, which seems strange since I'm a percussionist. But, over the years, I've become pretty convinced that good dancing is a lot more about the groove than the beat. I get all caught up in trying to make my body reflect the rythmn of the music, which is far too technical. So, I'm wondering: does DDR appeal to that technical adherence to a rythmn in contrast to real dancing?
TNR is one of the oldest journals of opinion in the US - it's well over a hundred years old. The poster may have meant "old school" in this sense. It's always been identified as "liberal".
However, it's never really been what progressives would describe as "progressive"; and for that reasons, leftists themselves tend to see TNR as a conservative wolf in liberal sheep's clothing.
It's probably best characterized as "moderate". But it's moved around a but. For example, under Andrew Sullivan's editorship in the early 90s - which was mercifuly brief - it lurched to the right.
That said, John Judis is fairly liberal. I'm very socially liberal but moderate economically. I was that happy with the article, really, since to me it seemed that although it gets right the essential facts of why the current situation is so messed up; he's short on details of proposed remedies and also too optimistic about the benefits of regulation. His biggest problem is in his whole "last mile" argument where he seems to think that the comms providers have been negligent - though he seems to be completely ignorant of the fact that the "last mile" accounts for 80% of all the network mileage. He makes it sound like the comms companies converted most of their networks and then just inexplicably stopped. No, they stopped where it would become most expensive without any real indication of a demand on the part of the end-user for optical over that last mile.
I'm a former subscriber to TNR, but I am not that happy with this article.
What's the difference between what is referred to as the baseline in a VLBA, and what we're talking about here? If you increase the baseline, you increase the "aperture", right? But that doesn't increase the sensitivty, right? Is the real advantage of a huge array of dishes designed and operated as one telescope (as opposed to an ad hoc assembly) the things that are involved in this story -- i.e., data communication bandwidth and control?
I ask this because I had kind of taken for granted that the real future of radio astronomy was going to be something like an array made out of many dishes in very high orbits...
Geez, as much of a supporter of SETI as I am, I feel the need to as if you folks do know, don't you, that a radio telescope is good for other things -- you know, like astronomy?
"Spelt" looks horribly wrong to me. Which is odd, since quite a few other Brit spellings look quite alright (even strange ones). I assume that many of these spellings are acceptable to me because I've seen them. So why haven't I seen "spelt" (enough)? Ah, well, too many shaky assumptions in my chain of reasoning. Maybe "spelt" looks especially wrong because it sounds differently, too.
I mean, c'mon. There is some middle ground (called "reality") between the RIAA's inflated numbers and claiming that there's pretty much no one that's not buying CDs anymore because they can get the music for free. It's spooky to me that people would feel the need to go out of their way to claim something as absurd as "it's not having a negative effect on CD sales at all". Yeah, right.
Being dishonest like this just gives more ammunition to the RIAA and friends.
In my case, out of a collection of about 1,500 MP3s (nothing by most /.ers standards), no more than 20 or 30 are stuff I don't own. And of the music I have bought in the last two years, at least a small part of it is stuff I probably wouldn't have bought had I not heard it from an MP3. But I'm the only person I know with a significantly large MP3 collection that is made up of almost exclusively stuff that's legal. So I'm skeptical.
That every possible sequence of coin tosses of, say, 100 coins is equally likely is not inconsistent with the fact that all counts of heads and tails within that sequence are not equally likely. It is far more unlikely to get all heads, say, than it is to get 50 heads and 50 tails.
You may think -- and you may claim -- that you were objecting to tgibbs and other people asserting that 100 heads is just as likely as every other distribution of heads and tails. But tgibbs nor anyone else asserted such a thing.
But, again, you directly contradicted the first of those two correct assertions above; and that was an egregious error on your part. It's no excuse to claim that you were correcting an error that was not explicitly made -- especially when what was explicitly and quite simply asserted is true on an elementary level, and where there's no evidence but your own prejudice that there was an implicit error (the mentioned in the previous paragraph) on tgibbs's part.
When you say to me that I'm "misrepresenting the point", I can only guess that you mean that everyone here knows that the argument is really all about (metaphorically) that distribution of heads and tails -- not the likliehood of a particular sequence -- and that your argument is that evolution shows (metaphorically) 100 heads, which is pretty unlikely compared to the expected 50 heads and 50 tails....and so that is evidence of a creator.
But it's not clear to me that everyone here knows that any signficance to be found would be in the distriubtion of heads and tails, and not the exact sequence. This isn't obvious to me because from the beginning, tgibbs and others have pointed out that you'd have to be able to quantify in some way what the other distributions are likely to be. Firstly, the distribution isn't random -- unlike coin tosses, future genetic states are dependent upon past genetic states. In that sense, you can eliminate almost every other exact sequence of genetic changes because they're not possible. So you can't compare "this" one (the one that we're arguing about, the only one we have as an example) to those.
Secondly, well, hell....this is really stupid thing to be arguing about anyway. One thing that's very true, if carefully understood, is that you can't calculate a probability for a past event. The probability for a past event is 1. It's certain.
This sort of exercize is sophistry, or madness, or both. That you feel that it proves anything, and that you can claim that "HTHTHT" is more likely than "HHHHHH" as a sequence of coin tosses, is just, well, depressing.
No, I don't think that I am. As the other gentleman has tried to point out, calculating the significance of the particular sequence of genetic events that got us from there to here is entirely about quantifying, in this context, the exact sort of thing that is different between a straight and a straight flush.
What is being objected to is, metaphorically, that someone has been dealt a hand, they've calculated the odds of being dealt that particular hand, and then they assert that it can't have been randomly dealt since there's only a 1 in 2.5 million chance that that particular hand would have been dealt.
I'll repeat the original quote:
That's pretty unambiguous. Every sequence of coins (of the same length -- and what the hell else would we be talking about?) does have exactly the same probability of occurance as any other.
When your response is that tgibbs "doesn't understand probability", you can only be asserting that his statement was false. It is not. The only possible conclusions, then, are that either you don't understand probability, you are a sloppy reader or writer, or you aren't entirely honest. These are not mutually exclusive.
Wait, hold on... Hmm. Well, looking at your post, I see:
Really, you're quite confused about something fundamental. Do you think you're doing some binomial distribution exercize? In this context, sequence matters. "HTHTHT" is not the same "thing" as "HHHTTT". "HTHTHT" and "HHHTTT" and "HHHHHH" and "TTTTTT" and "THHTTT" are all particular, exact sequences; and all are equally likely.
A royal flush is no less likely a poker hand than any other.
Anyway, I wrote "dismayed" in the above paragraph because so many Christians I've known accept the King James as just as much the "perfect" inspired "word of God" as the works it was translated from.
My sister, who's now a minister and missionary, about six years ago when she was in with a more, shall we say, "unlearned" crowd, tried to convince me that "logos" meant primarily and exclusively "Word of God". I tried to explain to her that logos was a very, very important word in Greek; and it had several related meanings. She didn't really believe me. This is the problem with religion-based teaching -- it's very narrow but goes to pains to disguise its narrowness so the the student has a tendency both to think they know more than they do, and to misapply what they know.
And this describes so-called "creation science" pretty accurately.