Is there a name for Dink's world?
In my many random musings, I thought of Dink's world. It's very different from ours with all of its Boncas and Slimes and Slayers. But I don't recall there ever being an oblique reference to the name of Dink's planet. Is it some sort of alternate Earth, or does it have some sort of wonderful and weird name?
If it were to have a name, what would you call it?
If it were to have a name, what would you call it?
Funny this comes up, cause out of all the RPGs I have played, Dink's world resembles our real one the most. In fact, most of the game is based on making fun of the mediaeval times, and people's ways back then. If you remove the obvious fantasy elements, it's pretty dang accurate. I always thought this was something Dink didn't get praised enough for, even within our own community. People mostly seem to ignore that it's actually a very good mediaeval adventure game.
And as a person who believes some forms of dinosaurs still existed during those times, even the monsters in Dink don't seem that unearthly.
And as a person who believes some forms of dinosaurs still existed during those times, even the monsters in Dink don't seem that unearthly.
That's an interesting perspective.
In Crosslink, Dink said his world was named "Dink Smallwood," and that they named it after him because he defeated a great evil. That always made me chuckle.
They still do.
Eh, don't really believe in the whole bird theory. But you're right in that they still do exist. There's animals like alligators, turtles and Komodo dragons for example, which have been living here since or before the dinosaurs, and still do. So in fact, they are very much dinosaurs. I find it ridiculous they aren't counted as such.
Eh, don't really believe in the whole bird theory. But you're right in that they still do exist. There's animals like alligators, turtles and Komodo dragons for example, which have been living here since or before the dinosaurs, and still do. So in fact, they are very much dinosaurs. I find it ridiculous they aren't counted as such.
As far as I'm concerned, the rule of cool applies here. Who gives a duck's arse about debating whether birds are really dinosaurs or not? Birds being dinosaurs is mindblowingly awesome, and therefore, all birds are dinosaurs, always. Except penguins. Those guys are just too silly.
for a group to be natural, all descendants of members of the group must be included in the group as well. Birds are thus considered to be dinosaurs and dinosaurs are, therefore, not extinct.
^ Conclusive evidence from Wikipedia that we do indeed live in a good world.
for a group to be natural, all descendants of members of the group must be included in the group as well. Birds are thus considered to be dinosaurs and dinosaurs are, therefore, not extinct.
^ Conclusive evidence from Wikipedia that we do indeed live in a good world.
Our friends the birds aside, the rest of the dinosaurs very clearly went extinct 66 million years ago. Radiometric dating and the fossil record provide hard evidence of that.
Eh, there's no concrete proof. All we have is the oldest found skeleton and the newest found skeleton. For all we know, there might still be a dinosaur skeleton somewhere that's much older than any of the currently found ones. Same with the newer ones. For example, a long time it was "proven" that the humans originated from Africa, just because the oldest skeleton was found there. And then just a while back they found an even older skeleton in Europe (it was either in Denmark or Turkey. Can't remember which). So are we now going to assume humans originated from there? This kind of "hard evidence" is ridiculous. It's purely based on assumptions.
Sorry for the rant, but I can't stand when people state their "facts" and "reality" which idiot mainstream scientists and historians have force fed to them, instead of using common sense. Don't ignore the proof from the other side, such as the millions of depictions and records of dinosaurs before, during and after mediaeval times from all around the planet. It's no worse proof than a few fossils, which age I very much doubt can even be calculated as accurately as scientists claim. There's also the proof which I stated, that there are still dinosaurs living amongst us, in the form of crocodiles and turtles, for example. So they couldn't have died 66 million years ago, because they still exist today. Which means they also had to exist inbetween now and then.
/annoyed person over and out
Sorry for the rant, but I can't stand when people state their "facts" and "reality" which idiot mainstream scientists and historians have force fed to them, instead of using common sense. Don't ignore the proof from the other side, such as the millions of depictions and records of dinosaurs before, during and after mediaeval times from all around the planet. It's no worse proof than a few fossils, which age I very much doubt can even be calculated as accurately as scientists claim. There's also the proof which I stated, that there are still dinosaurs living amongst us, in the form of crocodiles and turtles, for example. So they couldn't have died 66 million years ago, because they still exist today. Which means they also had to exist inbetween now and then.
/annoyed person over and out
One thing you're correct about is that we can't be sure the newest found skeleton actually corresponds to the time the very last dinosaur died; in fact, that's very unlikely. However, so many animals disappearing from the fossil record at the same time represents an extinction event, not to mention the corresponding crater.
Furthermore, radiometric dating is startlingly accurate, yes. Carbon 14 dating is used to tell how old more recent things are (its half-life being far too short to date things like dinosaur fossils), and it's the hardest kind of proof there is. It's possible for certain kinds of soil content to skew the results a bit in older samples, but not very much.
As for the origin of modern humans, there is tremendous evidence supporting Africa as the location where the modern human population arose. There IS some credible debate about the exact location, but pretty much everybody agrees on the continent at this point. Populations of humans and hominids elsewhere (not anatomically modern humans, but neanderthals, homo erectus, and so on) were forced out by the dispersal of this African population, which is why this is known as the "out of Africa" theory (theory, at least of the sort I'm talking about here, being the most well-confirmed type of scientific explanation - I know it's rather confusing, I wish they'd improve their terminology too). The evidence for this doesn't just come from the fossil record (itself a very strong case, as well-developed as the record is today) - it comes from the study of mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome, which don't get mixed around like the rest of our genetic material at reproduction.
I haven't had anything force fed to me. Anything, even these assertions, can be disproven, but the mounting evidence makes that more and more unlikely. Not everything in "mainstream" scientific thought, as you put it, is so concrete as the things I just talked about, but we're speaking of some of the most well-confirmed theories out there. It's difficult for me to understand how you can scoff at such rigorously tested bodies of evidence as the fossil record while holding up as proof bits of conjecture. Dragons were not dinosaurs, and in many cases don't even look like them.
As for the other animals you mentioned, they're more distant relations from them than birds are. Crocodiles are an interesting one to bring up, actually, because they share a common ancestor with dinosaurs relatively recently (250-225 million years ago) and if the definition of "dinosaur" were somewhat broadened, they might be called dinosaurs the same way they're doing with birds (which I'm not convinced is totally justified, but whatever). So it's no coincidence that crocs look like dinos. Turtles, on the other hand, lived alongside dinosaurs and are not particularly close relations.
I'm sorry; I've held my tongue on some topics around here, believe me, but I can't keep my mouth shut on this one. I believe in observable (measurable) reality, and I take it very seriously. Without that, where are we?
Furthermore, radiometric dating is startlingly accurate, yes. Carbon 14 dating is used to tell how old more recent things are (its half-life being far too short to date things like dinosaur fossils), and it's the hardest kind of proof there is. It's possible for certain kinds of soil content to skew the results a bit in older samples, but not very much.
As for the origin of modern humans, there is tremendous evidence supporting Africa as the location where the modern human population arose. There IS some credible debate about the exact location, but pretty much everybody agrees on the continent at this point. Populations of humans and hominids elsewhere (not anatomically modern humans, but neanderthals, homo erectus, and so on) were forced out by the dispersal of this African population, which is why this is known as the "out of Africa" theory (theory, at least of the sort I'm talking about here, being the most well-confirmed type of scientific explanation - I know it's rather confusing, I wish they'd improve their terminology too). The evidence for this doesn't just come from the fossil record (itself a very strong case, as well-developed as the record is today) - it comes from the study of mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome, which don't get mixed around like the rest of our genetic material at reproduction.
I haven't had anything force fed to me. Anything, even these assertions, can be disproven, but the mounting evidence makes that more and more unlikely. Not everything in "mainstream" scientific thought, as you put it, is so concrete as the things I just talked about, but we're speaking of some of the most well-confirmed theories out there. It's difficult for me to understand how you can scoff at such rigorously tested bodies of evidence as the fossil record while holding up as proof bits of conjecture. Dragons were not dinosaurs, and in many cases don't even look like them.
As for the other animals you mentioned, they're more distant relations from them than birds are. Crocodiles are an interesting one to bring up, actually, because they share a common ancestor with dinosaurs relatively recently (250-225 million years ago) and if the definition of "dinosaur" were somewhat broadened, they might be called dinosaurs the same way they're doing with birds (which I'm not convinced is totally justified, but whatever). So it's no coincidence that crocs look like dinos. Turtles, on the other hand, lived alongside dinosaurs and are not particularly close relations.
I'm sorry; I've held my tongue on some topics around here, believe me, but I can't keep my mouth shut on this one. I believe in observable (measurable) reality, and I take it very seriously. Without that, where are we?
How exactly did we come to the name of Dink's world to whether or not dinosaurs still exist?!
You know, that is a dang good question.
This is the DN
This is the DN
Good point.
Good point.
How exactly did we come to the name of Dink's world to whether or not dinosaurs still exist?!
I merely stated that I think dinosaurs existed during mediaeval times, to discuss about the monsters in Dink's world. I never intended it to become a discussion. But of course somebody just had to come and say "No. Your theory and beliefs are wrong because scientists say things went different way and because you're in the minority. You are wrrrrooong and I have definite proof of that. Roar!". Typical DN behaviour. It pisses me off so much.
People need to use more common sense in arguments. Everybody always uses something another person has said or what the more popular opinion is as an argument. It's stupid. I bet people would argue that snow isn't water if highly educated scientists just said so. Gladly, and somewhat surprisingly, even they aren't stupid enough to argue that. Though I'm sure there's been at least one...
I merely stated that I think dinosaurs existed during mediaeval times, to discuss about the monsters in Dink's world. I never intended it to become a discussion. But of course somebody just had to come and say "No. Your theory and beliefs are wrong because scientists say things went different way and because you're in the minority. You are wrrrrooong and I have definite proof of that. Roar!". Typical DN behaviour. It pisses me off so much.
People need to use more common sense in arguments. Everybody always uses something another person has said or what the more popular opinion is as an argument. It's stupid. I bet people would argue that snow isn't water if highly educated scientists just said so. Gladly, and somewhat surprisingly, even they aren't stupid enough to argue that. Though I'm sure there's been at least one...
Honestly I don't see what you mean, it seemed like a pretty friendly discussion if you ask me. We chip in because we find the topic interesting, not because we want to force you to think the same thing as us (at least, most of us do).
While I might advise cocomonkey to just ignore these sort of comments, it doesn't mean I always do that. 
Typical DN behaviour. It pisses me off so much.
I very much disagree. In my experience, the DN is one of the friendliest communities on the internet.
Everybody always uses something another person has said
Most of the time, yes. Where did you get the idea that turtles and dinosaurs lived in the same era? Right, that's what I thought. That is because the world is so complex, that it is impossible to personally do research on every topic. So if someone says "I've done research, and this is what I found", then we tend to believe them. For example, someone recently said that the order in which sprite's main() functions are called is their depth sorting order. This sounds weird, but I believe it without checking. Then someone else says they did check it, and found that it was correct. Now I believe it even more firmly, but I still didn't check it. But back to the general topic, if they found something really strange, we will ask for a convincing explanation, consisting of the measurements and how they lead to the conclusion they draw. In the example here, the explanation "this is DinkC" is pretty convincing to me.
That's called science. It's the best we have in terms of finding out how things really are. By discarding any and all statements of scientists, you end up with a world full of unexplained things. "Common sense" isn't going to tell you anything about what happened more than 100 years ago. You weren't there for your common sense to get impressions and draw conclusions. Without science, you don't get further than "my grandmother told me that she saw this".
With science, you may sometimes end up believing something which isn't true, but most of the things that scientists find are actually true. That's the entire purpose of scientists, and with some common sense you can easily understand that most of them will try their best. The few that just want fame and make up results will lead to statements like yours, but they are a very small minority. Pretty much all scientific knowledge is believed by the scientist who publishes it. If many other scientists agree, it is very likely to be true. These are smart people, and they have common sense, too.
I bet people would argue that snow isn't water if highly educated scientists just said so.
Of course! If a smart person who has spent a lot of time understanding the world has researched this specific topic and found that, they are very likely right. But just someone saying it isn't enough. They have to explain why, and it must be convincing. That's how science works.
Now if you're talking about radioactive age determination, as was mentioned there is overwhelming proof that this is an extremely accurate method. And it's not just scientists saying "I pushed this button and the computer said the sample was 3000 years old". No, there is a very good reason for it to work, which can be explained and understood. Trying it on real samples shows that it works, too. (For example, all bones in a single skeleton should all be the same age, and they are.)
You know what, I'll explain to you how it works. Please tell me what's wrong with it, or which parts you don't believe. If there are no parts you don't believe, I hope you agree that that means you must believe that the method works. That's one of the basic rules of science. (Don't get me wrong; you don't have to be able to prove that it's wrong. But if you agree will all parts, including the logic leading to the conclusion, you must agree with the conclusion as well.)
Cosmic radiation causes nuclear reactions of atoms in the upper atmosphere. As a result, these atoms change into radioactive atoms. Due to diffusion, these atoms also reach the lower atmosphere. Radioactive atoms decay into stable (non-radioactive) atoms after a certain time. Because of the constant radiation, there is a permanent supply of new radioactive atoms, and because of decay they are lost again. This results in an equilibrium amount of radioactive atoms in the air we breathe.
And that is exactly the important part. Living organisms continuously take atoms from the air and put them into their body. Because of this, a living body contains the same ratio of radioactive and non-radioactive atoms of a certain part (say carbon) as the air. (This is only true if the radioactive atoms live much longer than they remain in the body, which is true for carbon.)
But when the organism dies, things change. It then no longer breathes, and it doesn't build new body parts with the radioactive atoms. So no new radioactive atoms are added to the body. But the ones in there still decay. This means that from the moment the organism dies, the amount of radioactive atoms in it will decrease.
If you measure the amount of carbon atoms in a fossil, and from the radioactivity you measure how much of that carbon is radioactive, you can find the ratio between them. There will be less radioactive material than there is in a living body. Some simple math (and facts like the half life of the atom you're using) gives you the age of the sample.
So when does this method fail? When for some reason there was more or less radioactive material in the body when it was alive, or when it was preserved in a highly radioactive environment, causing new radioactive atoms to be generated after it died. A clear example is someone who died from radiation, for example by eating highly radioactive food. Their body will contain much more radioactive atoms than normal, which results in a negative age measurement. After a long time, the age will no longer be negative, but it will still come out smaller than it really was. I think there are some ways to detect this (I could think of one), but I'm not that familiar with the method.
Typical DN behaviour. It pisses me off so much.
I very much disagree. In my experience, the DN is one of the friendliest communities on the internet.
Everybody always uses something another person has said
Most of the time, yes. Where did you get the idea that turtles and dinosaurs lived in the same era? Right, that's what I thought. That is because the world is so complex, that it is impossible to personally do research on every topic. So if someone says "I've done research, and this is what I found", then we tend to believe them. For example, someone recently said that the order in which sprite's main() functions are called is their depth sorting order. This sounds weird, but I believe it without checking. Then someone else says they did check it, and found that it was correct. Now I believe it even more firmly, but I still didn't check it. But back to the general topic, if they found something really strange, we will ask for a convincing explanation, consisting of the measurements and how they lead to the conclusion they draw. In the example here, the explanation "this is DinkC" is pretty convincing to me.
That's called science. It's the best we have in terms of finding out how things really are. By discarding any and all statements of scientists, you end up with a world full of unexplained things. "Common sense" isn't going to tell you anything about what happened more than 100 years ago. You weren't there for your common sense to get impressions and draw conclusions. Without science, you don't get further than "my grandmother told me that she saw this".
With science, you may sometimes end up believing something which isn't true, but most of the things that scientists find are actually true. That's the entire purpose of scientists, and with some common sense you can easily understand that most of them will try their best. The few that just want fame and make up results will lead to statements like yours, but they are a very small minority. Pretty much all scientific knowledge is believed by the scientist who publishes it. If many other scientists agree, it is very likely to be true. These are smart people, and they have common sense, too.
I bet people would argue that snow isn't water if highly educated scientists just said so.
Of course! If a smart person who has spent a lot of time understanding the world has researched this specific topic and found that, they are very likely right. But just someone saying it isn't enough. They have to explain why, and it must be convincing. That's how science works.
Now if you're talking about radioactive age determination, as was mentioned there is overwhelming proof that this is an extremely accurate method. And it's not just scientists saying "I pushed this button and the computer said the sample was 3000 years old". No, there is a very good reason for it to work, which can be explained and understood. Trying it on real samples shows that it works, too. (For example, all bones in a single skeleton should all be the same age, and they are.)
You know what, I'll explain to you how it works. Please tell me what's wrong with it, or which parts you don't believe. If there are no parts you don't believe, I hope you agree that that means you must believe that the method works. That's one of the basic rules of science. (Don't get me wrong; you don't have to be able to prove that it's wrong. But if you agree will all parts, including the logic leading to the conclusion, you must agree with the conclusion as well.)
Cosmic radiation causes nuclear reactions of atoms in the upper atmosphere. As a result, these atoms change into radioactive atoms. Due to diffusion, these atoms also reach the lower atmosphere. Radioactive atoms decay into stable (non-radioactive) atoms after a certain time. Because of the constant radiation, there is a permanent supply of new radioactive atoms, and because of decay they are lost again. This results in an equilibrium amount of radioactive atoms in the air we breathe.
And that is exactly the important part. Living organisms continuously take atoms from the air and put them into their body. Because of this, a living body contains the same ratio of radioactive and non-radioactive atoms of a certain part (say carbon) as the air. (This is only true if the radioactive atoms live much longer than they remain in the body, which is true for carbon.)
But when the organism dies, things change. It then no longer breathes, and it doesn't build new body parts with the radioactive atoms. So no new radioactive atoms are added to the body. But the ones in there still decay. This means that from the moment the organism dies, the amount of radioactive atoms in it will decrease.
If you measure the amount of carbon atoms in a fossil, and from the radioactivity you measure how much of that carbon is radioactive, you can find the ratio between them. There will be less radioactive material than there is in a living body. Some simple math (and facts like the half life of the atom you're using) gives you the age of the sample.
So when does this method fail? When for some reason there was more or less radioactive material in the body when it was alive, or when it was preserved in a highly radioactive environment, causing new radioactive atoms to be generated after it died. A clear example is someone who died from radiation, for example by eating highly radioactive food. Their body will contain much more radioactive atoms than normal, which results in a negative age measurement. After a long time, the age will no longer be negative, but it will still come out smaller than it really was. I think there are some ways to detect this (I could think of one), but I'm not that familiar with the method.
I very much disagree. In my experience, the DN is one of the friendliest communities on the internet.
This community the friendliest? Where people gang up on certain people and make fun of them? Pick on them endlessly? Where you can't even state your opinions in a passing sentence without having someone immediately come and basically insult you for it? Yeah, right. I've seen the question "how do all these idiots always find The Dink Network" asked many times. And the answer is they don't, this website and its people are what make those people act like idiots.
Most of the time, yes. Where did you get the idea that turtles and dinosaurs lived in the same era?
From the same scientists, I'm not afraid to admit that. But here's the fun part: I don't have to believe that turtles existed back then, but because these are the same scientists making that claim, that would mean they'd be unreliable and that dinosaurs didn't necessarily exist back then either. However, if you want to count this information as reliable, you'll have to believe that both of them did exist back then. So they're basically talking against themselves. If you trust their conclusions that dinosaurs existed back then, you'll have to trust that turtles did too. If you don't trust their conclusions that turtles existed back then, then you can't trust that dinosaurs did either. And if there was a huge catastrophe that wiped the entire planet out of dinosaurs, then it wouldn't have left turtles or crocodiles alive either. Or are you suggesting the catastrophe thought out loud: "Hmm... these things will not be called dinosaurs in the future, even though they technically are, so I'm gonna spare them". Sadly, that's what most people seem to believe, even though that's the biggest hole in pretty much any theory ever.
There's also this thing called instinct, in which you can tell just by looking at an animal if it's inhabited this planet long.
Of course! If a smart person who has spent a lot of time understanding the world has researched this specific topic and found that, they are very likely right. But just someone saying it isn't enough. They have to explain why, and it must be convincing. That's how science works.
Well now you've lost all respect from me. Talk about going with scientists' beliefs. Why the hell would you believe that snow isn't water even if a million highly educated scientists said so after a decade of research, when you can use common sense, go to a place where there's snow, put it in a warm place and see that it's water with your own eyes!
Science is based on pure assumption and is more often wrong than right. If you want to talk about science, and since we're on the subject of dinosaurs, let's talk about the T-Rex: One of the biggest mistakes historians, scientists and archeologists together have ever made. That thing came together by an accident and never even existed, and yet scientists claim that thing walked on our planet millions of years ago.
And whoever compared dinosaurs to dragons, I never said dinosaurs were dragons. But I wouldn't rule out the possibility of some form of a descendant of dinosaurs, that could've flown and/or spit fire. Not to mention, dragons usually weren't referred to as big winged creatures which spat fire. They were often small lizard-like beings about the height of a man's knee. There's millions of records of dragons throughout history. I wouldn't be so quick to judge them out. Stranger animals have been discovered, even during modern days.
This community the friendliest? Where people gang up on certain people and make fun of them? Pick on them endlessly? Where you can't even state your opinions in a passing sentence without having someone immediately come and basically insult you for it? Yeah, right. I've seen the question "how do all these idiots always find The Dink Network" asked many times. And the answer is they don't, this website and its people are what make those people act like idiots.
Most of the time, yes. Where did you get the idea that turtles and dinosaurs lived in the same era?
From the same scientists, I'm not afraid to admit that. But here's the fun part: I don't have to believe that turtles existed back then, but because these are the same scientists making that claim, that would mean they'd be unreliable and that dinosaurs didn't necessarily exist back then either. However, if you want to count this information as reliable, you'll have to believe that both of them did exist back then. So they're basically talking against themselves. If you trust their conclusions that dinosaurs existed back then, you'll have to trust that turtles did too. If you don't trust their conclusions that turtles existed back then, then you can't trust that dinosaurs did either. And if there was a huge catastrophe that wiped the entire planet out of dinosaurs, then it wouldn't have left turtles or crocodiles alive either. Or are you suggesting the catastrophe thought out loud: "Hmm... these things will not be called dinosaurs in the future, even though they technically are, so I'm gonna spare them". Sadly, that's what most people seem to believe, even though that's the biggest hole in pretty much any theory ever.
There's also this thing called instinct, in which you can tell just by looking at an animal if it's inhabited this planet long.
Of course! If a smart person who has spent a lot of time understanding the world has researched this specific topic and found that, they are very likely right. But just someone saying it isn't enough. They have to explain why, and it must be convincing. That's how science works.
Well now you've lost all respect from me. Talk about going with scientists' beliefs. Why the hell would you believe that snow isn't water even if a million highly educated scientists said so after a decade of research, when you can use common sense, go to a place where there's snow, put it in a warm place and see that it's water with your own eyes!
Science is based on pure assumption and is more often wrong than right. If you want to talk about science, and since we're on the subject of dinosaurs, let's talk about the T-Rex: One of the biggest mistakes historians, scientists and archeologists together have ever made. That thing came together by an accident and never even existed, and yet scientists claim that thing walked on our planet millions of years ago.
And whoever compared dinosaurs to dragons, I never said dinosaurs were dragons. But I wouldn't rule out the possibility of some form of a descendant of dinosaurs, that could've flown and/or spit fire. Not to mention, dragons usually weren't referred to as big winged creatures which spat fire. They were often small lizard-like beings about the height of a man's knee. There's millions of records of dragons throughout history. I wouldn't be so quick to judge them out. Stranger animals have been discovered, even during modern days.
Um. I never insulted you, Skull, I just disagreed with you. I'm not your enemy.
Turtles DID exist in dinosaur times, according to fossils that've been found. The extinction event didn't kill everything, obviously - if it had there wouldn't be any life around now
Turtles DID exist in dinosaur times, according to fossils that've been found. The extinction event didn't kill everything, obviously - if it had there wouldn't be any life around now
Looks like someone's on their period.
Funny how I saw that coming from a mile away. It's the professional bully of the site, Scratcher, doing what he does best again. Which is trying to come up with clever insults towards someone who's behaviour he disagrees with, but failing at that because he's just too predictable. No, it's not funny actually. Because this is exactly what I was talking about. Only thing missing are ten other people ganging up with Scratcher like little school children. And the only reason for this is that we barely even have 10 people here anymore.
Um. I never insulted you, Skull, I just disagreed with you. I'm not your enemy.
Disagree if you want to. Don't state your theories as absolute facts and mine as absolute false, like you did. That's insulting. Especially in a thread where my theory wasn't even part of the subject, except as a passing sentence. I'm just tired of the same crap on this site year after year. I state an opinion, someone has to come and insult my opinion in one way or another, I get annoyed by this, and then someone like Scratcher comes with his shoothead attitude and tries to throw one of his weak insults at me. And nope, I'm not trying to come across as an ultimate victim or something. I've seen this happen to countless other people here as well. I've wandered on some of the weirdest and sick ducking websites that there are, and on none of those websites have people got the same idiotic attitude as the people here.
Funny how I saw that coming from a mile away. It's the professional bully of the site, Scratcher, doing what he does best again. Which is trying to come up with clever insults towards someone who's behaviour he disagrees with, but failing at that because he's just too predictable. No, it's not funny actually. Because this is exactly what I was talking about. Only thing missing are ten other people ganging up with Scratcher like little school children. And the only reason for this is that we barely even have 10 people here anymore.
Um. I never insulted you, Skull, I just disagreed with you. I'm not your enemy.
Disagree if you want to. Don't state your theories as absolute facts and mine as absolute false, like you did. That's insulting. Especially in a thread where my theory wasn't even part of the subject, except as a passing sentence. I'm just tired of the same crap on this site year after year. I state an opinion, someone has to come and insult my opinion in one way or another, I get annoyed by this, and then someone like Scratcher comes with his shoothead attitude and tries to throw one of his weak insults at me. And nope, I'm not trying to come across as an ultimate victim or something. I've seen this happen to countless other people here as well. I've wandered on some of the weirdest and sick ducking websites that there are, and on none of those websites have people got the same idiotic attitude as the people here.
Well Cocomonkey, I hate to say this but Skull is right. You are worse than 11 year olds on porn forums. All kidding aside, seriously Skull, whether you realize it or not it was actually a pretty friendly discussion until you decided cocomonkey was the devil or something. Maybe he could've worded what he said a bit better, but I think it's quite clear that he meant no rudeness. As far as I can tell, you are the only one being rude in this conversation by taking everything anyone disagrees with you on as some personal attack on you and then using it to assess their level of idiotic attitude...
. Don't state your theories as absolute facts and mine as absolute false, like you did.
But you started by claiming your own theory as fact, how is that any different? By the way, c'mon, Scratcher is an all right guy and was only kidding around with you. Do I have an idiotic attitude now because I disagree with you about Scratcher? If so, you seem to be fitting your description of Scratcher better than he does.
Seriously, getting this angry over a petty argument just makes others either angry or uneasy, even though as far as I can tell nobody was trying to attack you. I think it's a misunderstanding, nothing more. And getting angry over a misunderstanding is pointless.
. Don't state your theories as absolute facts and mine as absolute false, like you did.
But you started by claiming your own theory as fact, how is that any different? By the way, c'mon, Scratcher is an all right guy and was only kidding around with you. Do I have an idiotic attitude now because I disagree with you about Scratcher? If so, you seem to be fitting your description of Scratcher better than he does.
Seriously, getting this angry over a petty argument just makes others either angry or uneasy, even though as far as I can tell nobody was trying to attack you. I think it's a misunderstanding, nothing more. And getting angry over a misunderstanding is pointless.
Yeah, it is kinda sad when 11-year-olds on porn forums are nicer and cooler guys than the people here. But who said anything about porn sites? If that's the worst you can find on the Internet, you certainly haven't dwelled very far.
My "insult" to cocomonkey was a joke of course. And yes, there are certainly worse places than porn forums. I just don't think this is one of them...
That's most likely because you were never on the targeted side of this community, like many other, more unfortunate people, have been.
It's the professional bully of the site, Scratcher, doing what he does best again.
Not quite. It's the caretaker of the site, trying to tell everyone to calm down and forget about this argument. I wasn't sure if it was directed to me this time (It wouldn't be the first time), and if it was I don't blame him: he makes a good point that this is not something to fight over.
Not quite. It's the caretaker of the site, trying to tell everyone to calm down and forget about this argument. I wasn't sure if it was directed to me this time (It wouldn't be the first time), and if it was I don't blame him: he makes a good point that this is not something to fight over.
Interesting. I didn't know you could take care of a site by bullying. Though I shouldn't be surprised. That's how The Dink Network always worked
What was this thread about again?
Yeah, yeah. If I'm bullying you by not addressing your comments in an entirely serious manner, rest assured, it's only because you're acting completely ridiculously.
Do you remember how you used to have similar fits every month a few years ago? I suggest you take a deep breath, relax, and read this thread again in about a week. You'll feel embarrassed about how absurdly you're behaving for virtually no reason at all, I quarantee it.
Do you remember how you used to have similar fits every month a few years ago? I suggest you take a deep breath, relax, and read this thread again in about a week. You'll feel embarrassed about how absurdly you're behaving for virtually no reason at all, I quarantee it.
Next time I get involved in a discussion of something other than Dink Smallwood on this forum, somebody remind me that it's a bad idea.
I would call Dink's world Dinky Dimension, after Redink. 
I thought it was Earth, unless you count Tal being in some dmods.
If you measure the amount of carbon atoms in a fossil, and from the radioactivity you measure how much of that carbon is radioactive, you can find the ratio between them. There will be less radioactive material than there is in a living body. Some simple math (and facts like the half life of the atom you're using) gives you the age of the sample.
Calling differential equations 'simple math' is quite telling...
And if there was a huge catastrophe that wiped the entire planet out of dinosaurs, then it wouldn't have left turtles or crocodiles alive either. Or are you suggesting the catastrophe thought out loud: "Hmm... these things will not be called dinosaurs in the future, even though they technically are, so I'm gonna spare them". Sadly, that's what most people seem to believe, even though that's the biggest hole in pretty much any theory ever.
Why would any catastrophe that killed off the dinosaurs kill off crocodiles and turtles as well? Science doesn't say that during the K-T extinction everything went extinct, only about 75% of all species went extinct. That also means that about 25% survived. Also keep in mind that such a mass extinction isn't random, the species best suited for surviving such a disaster will tend to survive. As the K-T extinction was likely caused by some sort of nuclear winter smaller creatures will tend to have a higher chance of survival as smaller creatures survive better in situations of low energy availability.
Well now you've lost all respect from me. Talk about going with scientists' beliefs. Why the hell would you believe that snow isn't water even if a million highly educated scientists said so after a decade of research, when you can use common sense, go to a place where there's snow, put it in a warm place and see that it's water with your own eyes!
Imagine that scientists would say that snow isn't water, they may actually have their reasons for it. Especially if they put in a decade of research. Perhaps you should listen to their arguments before ridiculing it. Most probably it would have to do with the exact definition of 'water'. If I define 'water' to be 'a liquid primarily made up of water molecules' than snow is not water. Of course scientists don't actually say that snow isn't water so the discussion is a little bit academic. I'd rather talk about examples where a majority of scientist actually do say something different than the mainstream believes. Rather than a purely imaginary case of 'imagine that scientists would be saying this or that'.
By the way, by your reasoning I could say that a log is fire, because if I take a log to a hot place it turns to fire. Though perhaps science may provide an alternative explanation...
Calling differential equations 'simple math' is quite telling...
And if there was a huge catastrophe that wiped the entire planet out of dinosaurs, then it wouldn't have left turtles or crocodiles alive either. Or are you suggesting the catastrophe thought out loud: "Hmm... these things will not be called dinosaurs in the future, even though they technically are, so I'm gonna spare them". Sadly, that's what most people seem to believe, even though that's the biggest hole in pretty much any theory ever.
Why would any catastrophe that killed off the dinosaurs kill off crocodiles and turtles as well? Science doesn't say that during the K-T extinction everything went extinct, only about 75% of all species went extinct. That also means that about 25% survived. Also keep in mind that such a mass extinction isn't random, the species best suited for surviving such a disaster will tend to survive. As the K-T extinction was likely caused by some sort of nuclear winter smaller creatures will tend to have a higher chance of survival as smaller creatures survive better in situations of low energy availability.
Well now you've lost all respect from me. Talk about going with scientists' beliefs. Why the hell would you believe that snow isn't water even if a million highly educated scientists said so after a decade of research, when you can use common sense, go to a place where there's snow, put it in a warm place and see that it's water with your own eyes!
Imagine that scientists would say that snow isn't water, they may actually have their reasons for it. Especially if they put in a decade of research. Perhaps you should listen to their arguments before ridiculing it. Most probably it would have to do with the exact definition of 'water'. If I define 'water' to be 'a liquid primarily made up of water molecules' than snow is not water. Of course scientists don't actually say that snow isn't water so the discussion is a little bit academic. I'd rather talk about examples where a majority of scientist actually do say something different than the mainstream believes. Rather than a purely imaginary case of 'imagine that scientists would be saying this or that'.
By the way, by your reasoning I could say that a log is fire, because if I take a log to a hot place it turns to fire. Though perhaps science may provide an alternative explanation...
Dink's world! Dink's world! Party time! Excellent!
Maybe some sort of fantasy name? Or something in Latin?
It could be what he calls Dink Jr. Or Seth's world
The DN, ladies and gentlemen.
We know its based on Greece due there being The Aegean Sea in mystery Island their kingdom could be some Byzantium dependency.
Danny-boy could of had Dink get lost on the wrong island that he gets lost on.
Unless you're aware of the existence of other worlds it makes sense to call your own world simply 'the world'. I guess that in Dink's world the same would hold.
Even in our world, when I talk about the 'world championships' you would probably ask me: 'The world championships in what?' rather than 'The championships of which world?'
Even in our world, when I talk about the 'world championships' you would probably ask me: 'The world championships in what?' rather than 'The championships of which world?'
Also, place names are usually formed by simply describing something, so they would likely call it something very mundane, like earth, or ground, or, umm... mudheap. Even with crazy fantasy names, authors tend to be pretty good at working that basic principle in by proxy; Érande Lin-querel i'læn is just the Elfish word for mudheap.
This community the friendliest? Where people gang up on certain people and make fun of them? Pick on them endlessly?
Sorry, but I'm not seeing it. It may be because I'm not looking at deleted posts, but what I see here is, with some exceptions, extremely polite behaviour compared to other places on the internet.
If you're referring to this particular thread, I don't see it here either. Nobody is ganging up on you. Nobody is insulting you. You make a claim that several people disagree with, and we tell you so. We invite you to explain why you think your claim is plausible, and give arguments why we think it isn't. For me, this is a normal part of a discussion. There's nothing insulting about it.
I've seen the question "how do all these idiots always find The Dink Network" asked many times.
You have? I think I've only seen it in the quotes on the bottom of the page, and I'm not even sure about that. Do you have links?
because these are the same scientists making that claim, that would mean they'd be unreliable and that dinosaurs didn't necessarily exist back then either.
I think I have identified a misunderstanding. Your definition of "dinosaur" seems to be "any species which lived xx years ago", while my definition is about which species it is. I'm not even entirely sure what defines a dinosaur, actually, but that is irrelevant; this different definition results in an important other difference: if turtles lived alongside (my definition) dinosaurs, then you call them dinosaurs, but I don't. With your definition (if I got it right) I agree that some dinosaurs have survived the mass extinction event.
However, I think my definition is the one most people use, so I would suggest that you change your terminology, to avoid misunderstandings like this in the future.
Science is based on pure assumption and is more often wrong than right.
That's an interesting statement, which might actually be true. The basis of science is to assume something, which may very well be wrong, test it, and discard it if it was indeed wrong. However, this also means that even if most of the hypotheses (which is what the assumptions are normally called) are wrong, the ones that are kept are usually right, at least for the situation they were tested in.
Also, this works better for an exact science like physics than for something more fuzzy like history. But the main feature, that mostly correct things are kept as "true", remains.
But yes, science is often wrong, and scientists know it. It is their goal to find the answers, which doesn't mean they have all of them.
I never said dinosaurs were dragons.
This seems to be a language issue. In English, a dragon is an actual animal, still living today. In Dutch we call them "Varaan", which doesn't sound at all like "Draak" (which is a fantasy dragon that flies and spits fire). But in English they are the same word.
Calling differential equations 'simple math' is quite telling...
I was talking from the engineer's perspective. There are indeed differential equations involved, but they are solved. What you practically have to do to get the age is a log function. But perhaps you are right that calling it "simple" was not justified.
Sorry, but I'm not seeing it. It may be because I'm not looking at deleted posts, but what I see here is, with some exceptions, extremely polite behaviour compared to other places on the internet.
If you're referring to this particular thread, I don't see it here either. Nobody is ganging up on you. Nobody is insulting you. You make a claim that several people disagree with, and we tell you so. We invite you to explain why you think your claim is plausible, and give arguments why we think it isn't. For me, this is a normal part of a discussion. There's nothing insulting about it.
I've seen the question "how do all these idiots always find The Dink Network" asked many times.
You have? I think I've only seen it in the quotes on the bottom of the page, and I'm not even sure about that. Do you have links?
because these are the same scientists making that claim, that would mean they'd be unreliable and that dinosaurs didn't necessarily exist back then either.
I think I have identified a misunderstanding. Your definition of "dinosaur" seems to be "any species which lived xx years ago", while my definition is about which species it is. I'm not even entirely sure what defines a dinosaur, actually, but that is irrelevant; this different definition results in an important other difference: if turtles lived alongside (my definition) dinosaurs, then you call them dinosaurs, but I don't. With your definition (if I got it right) I agree that some dinosaurs have survived the mass extinction event.
However, I think my definition is the one most people use, so I would suggest that you change your terminology, to avoid misunderstandings like this in the future.
Science is based on pure assumption and is more often wrong than right.
That's an interesting statement, which might actually be true. The basis of science is to assume something, which may very well be wrong, test it, and discard it if it was indeed wrong. However, this also means that even if most of the hypotheses (which is what the assumptions are normally called) are wrong, the ones that are kept are usually right, at least for the situation they were tested in.
Also, this works better for an exact science like physics than for something more fuzzy like history. But the main feature, that mostly correct things are kept as "true", remains.
But yes, science is often wrong, and scientists know it. It is their goal to find the answers, which doesn't mean they have all of them.
I never said dinosaurs were dragons.
This seems to be a language issue. In English, a dragon is an actual animal, still living today. In Dutch we call them "Varaan", which doesn't sound at all like "Draak" (which is a fantasy dragon that flies and spits fire). But in English they are the same word.
Calling differential equations 'simple math' is quite telling...
I was talking from the engineer's perspective. There are indeed differential equations involved, but they are solved. What you practically have to do to get the age is a log function. But perhaps you are right that calling it "simple" was not justified.
"Draak" (which is a fantasy dragon that flies and spits fire)
"Drake" in English is another word for a (fantasy) dragon. It is of course also a word for a duck... this could explain a lot about Dink's world.
The championships of which world?
Well, you never know, some people have a big opinion of themselves
"Drake" in English is another word for a (fantasy) dragon. It is of course also a word for a duck... this could explain a lot about Dink's world.
The championships of which world?
Well, you never know, some people have a big opinion of themselves
Ha ha, they call the NBA champions the "world champions" even though there's professional basketball all over the world, too.
In light of the preceding discussion about dinosaurs, and to keep this thread on topic..
How about 'Dinkotopia'? (after 'Dinotopia').
How about 'Dinkotopia'? (after 'Dinotopia').
-topia is more like referring to a city. "Dinkonesia" pppffffffffffff 
'topos' is Greek for 'a place' so it could be a city, a country or a world. Utopia - a perfect or ideal place - but it could also be a state of mind perhaps?
lol Would there be hardness errors in Dink's utopian world?
lol Would there be hardness errors in Dink's utopian world?
