Who else loves the new Compact Dark Theme on Firefox 43?

Whoops!

I mean 53. :P

@ByteCommander: Ubuntu always used to tell me to restart Firefox after an upgrade... It said that I would experience issues if I didn't... Isn't that true?

Don't you do the upgrade through Terminal?

The output would normally tell me the notice there...

But I guess if you did it through the GUI then it might not.

I have Arch now though and don't get any notice, so it's courtesy of the Ubuntu developers.

Maybe it's in the backend? Could you be causing a security issue?

I don't know...

I would like to suggest that they add something to the new theme made available by Mozilla... Do you think I just file a bug report on the bugzilla or is there a different way for themes?

Good one! :D

And 7 is a magic number too...

Interesting... If 666 comes up then that means Satan really is living in my bowels! :O

How so?

Just like my bowels then!

Sorry, I had a long period where I found my sanity again... But now I have lost it again and am weirding you all out again! :P

@ByteCommander Just to be the clear, Satan living in my bowels was partly a metaphor, but mostly a joke... :P

Also, to be clear, I am not happy with him living there and I am kicking him out of the door. :D

@ByteCommander: The kind of energies in that part of the body, it is the more animalistic part of the body with the energies of sex and anger and that sort of thing. The sort of thing associated with Satan.

So basically, Satan lives in all yee bowels! ;P

@RPiAwesomeness: Were you creationist by the way or was that someone else? Because I don't believe in the Theory of Evolution either any more! If it was you, then we should have party! ;)

:D

:D :D :D

Hey, I have a fun new little description for my SE chat profile that I just wrote and came up with:

> The reality is that everything is fine, only in your mind is it not, however your mind is reality and reality is your mind. Therefore all is not well, but it doesn't have to not be.

I think that that is some good advice.

:D

@ByteCommander: Well, didn't they do something with his spleen?

I don't know...

Adam and Eve, you're the one who brought them up! :P

I said I didn't believe in the Theory of Evolution, I didn't say I was Christian nor a Creationist.

Natural selection does happen... In extreme cases, yes, a certain gene may die out because it causes major issues in the one who has it. But this is not the case for the main evolution.

@ByteCommander: Like what about the better tolerance of milk in Europe which is developing in people? The people who don't digest it as well aren't dying, so the gene isn't dominating in that way, nor is the guy who got it first having sex with everybody and therefore mass spreading it. No, what is happening is that there has been an energetic push towards more tolerance to milk and therefore the changes have been slowly happening through the generations, in the individuals, and then passed on.

@ByteCommander: You see it in less people and then more just because everyone develops at a different pace, therefore a small amount of people seem to have it first, and then everyone starts to catch up. There is no actual natural selection or death like this involved. You don't hear about mass deaths and the milk thing wouldn't cause that anyway. So how do you explain it with the Theory of Evolution?

That's not the only big issue with it, but we shall address one point at a time.

But that doesn't explain the change in milk tolerance which is only just happening and would not increase death if you weren't as tolerant.

Plus, where is your evidence for this? They only noticed this change recently.

I am not talking about that though, until recently Europeans have found it hard to digest milk as well, however scientists are noticing that the tolerance for milk is increasing. However the current tolerance level would not actually increase the likelihood of death therefore natural selection does not apply.

But then how did the initial push come about?

Are you saying that this big and intelligent change in the body just came by completely random chance?

Why aren't we seeing a lot more random and unhelpful mutations then? Why do we get so many useful ones exactly when we need them?

@terdon: The chances of a random change in such a complex and balanced organism causing immense damage is incredibly high, yet all seem well and the change was perfect.

@terdon: But there appears to be a direction... Otherwise, why would the change stay, why wouldn't it go to that state, and then change to something else never to come about? Why would everything be so perfect?

The body is an amazing and incredibly complex organism with amazing balances which functions so well, how could that all have just been random chance?

The ways that cells are designed to split apart, he wonders of the white blood cells that drive away infections, the pure intelligence in the design, how could it all just be at random?

@ByteCommander: You are using a computer, you have a consciousness, doctors exist who study and repair the body, buildings exist because of our amazing minds, how could all this just be random chance? And how can you say that that isn't amazing?

Nothing is perfect, and evolution continues, but the body really is amazing that is undeniable.

Natural selection is all about physical randomness of death.

Reproduction increases in some because others die off. That is what it says.

I do not deny that we evolve, I just have a very slightly different view from yours on the mechanics behind this.

The design of the body is one which has been done very intelligently.

Which you would call me a creationist for, however I only say that reality which we have assumptions about but don't actually know anything for sure about, is different from how we think. Why does it have to be random? Why can't reality be intelligent. You have consciousness, how do you know that everything doesn't?

Because it is that consciousness and awareness which allows all of matter to intelligently, and at least logically evolve, not just through random chance.

What actual proof do you have of your claims though?

The proof shows that evolution occurs, but does it specifically point to either one of our theories?

Well, what you and science believe about the random natural selection.

Or what I believe about it not being random at all.

Then how does it come about?

If you don't go my way with it, then what is the other way other than random?

Explain that sentence.

If they don't occur randomly, please explain how they occur. You have told me that I am wrong, but that they don't occur randomly, I'm saying that they don't occur randomly, but you are telling me still that I am wrong. So please explain your position properly and that of science.

What do you define as the meaning of random?

Also, why won't it be passed done?

There are many bad conditions which get passed down through generations.

Ok, but they don't do that a lot.

And that's just a specific and quite extreme example.

But the other conditions do get passed down, therefore your argument does not work for the majority seemingly.

So, would just one person get the mutation and then after an incredible long time, if all of the offspring still carried it and then became the majority, then this would be something everyone would get as the evolution of the species, or would multiple different people just happen to get it at once?

That just seems impracticable, do you know how long that would take and how unlikely it would be that it would become the majority?

Literary the amount of sex that would be needed...

What is the actual proof for it occurring?

I mean, I know of the Fossil Record, but how does this prove what you are saying over what I am saying?

Surely it shows that there is some evolution, but not the mechanics behind it?

Evidence is subject to opinion, nothing is truly measurable by assumptions, nor reason for their accepted validity.

How do you know that what it is that you are observing is not just energy balancing out? There is a lot of energy all over the place so the results may initially appear random, then when it interacts with other energies the reaction is different but a balance must always be met.

Ah, Science is really just a lot of holey moley rubbish.

You should start be re-examining your methods for measuring and why you should use them.

There is no guiding hand in the background as such, it is just the logical energetic flow which is one with the physical and matter and is the physical and matter but at the same time the energetic. It is the logic of reality.

It can be observed in all of science's logic.

Even in the laws of relativity. Those are all energetic principles. For energy is matter and matter is energy. It is not invisible, nor does it have to exist, but it is the logic behind the movements.

How do you know that it isn't an assumption that anything is 'testable' in the first place? Shouldn't you 'attack' that?

Why do you believe in something that you do not understand?

What if nobody really understands? How will you know unless you investigate it yourself? What if everybody is just trusting others and there are just 5 idiots at the top who claim a lot of rubbish?

I know what energy is, I can feel it, but the English language lacks the words to describe it properly. You may use it with a different meaning, but it has been long used in another sense, longer before the existence of science.

The way I see it, a lot of your description about evolution is the same as what I'm saying, I am just talking about it in the logic of its energetic flow which you are observing the larger effects of in the physical. The actual evidence in the DNA and all that doesn't favour either of our theories more so. In fact, I think they really are the same.

@terdon Scientific methods are all based on assumptions because someone had a feeling about things a long time ago. But even though it's all based on a feeling of how things should be, you reject all other base feelings. Even though your tests are based on some.

Science is not man made, science is part of everything, it is only a part of it though, and should stay that way, however man is trying to define everything by it, and you can't define everything with science, only things within its scope, but scientists are trying to dominate everything with it. It's not a bad thing, but all needs to be kept in balance.

@terdon How so? It's all based on assumptions.

The main issue with science I would say is that you don't know where to stop, these discoveries, the ways you can rearrange atoms to make new things is endless. But does it ever really help you? I believe that you true way is to know where to stop and what is important, where the cut the bush and not just endlessly and pointlessly grow outwards.

@terdon There are a high amount of possible unknown variables in that situations, therefore it can never be truly accurate, not definitely anyway.

@terdon The very specific and metallic way that science looks at everything in is a way which is part of the balance of the world, you didn't create the world, you just found this way of thinking, if it wasn't there before, you couldn't have found it now.

Sorry, I need to go to bed now, but I will leave you with one final quote which I think perfectly sums things up:

Not from self, not from other
Not from both, nor without cause
Does anything arise
At any place, at any time

Goodnight! :)

@terdon: The issue is the sense of self and that anything really is and stays as it is.

Anyway, that quote says it perfectly.

So I need not add more.

And I need my sleep.