User talk:70.108.89.17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I didn't edit the "Intelligent Design" page, but I got blocked because I commented on the discussion page?! Wow, now I'm really beginning to wonder whether there is in fact a conspiracy or this is just a the MySpace crowd with a few more pimples and a lot less weekend action.

BTW, how can I prove I'm not someone else if I can't create an username because my IP is blocked? I already left my name and phone number on the discussion page, feel free to call me if you want to explain that one. I'm really disillusioned with this site. My email is "will AT nesbitt on the web (all one word) DOT com".

[edit] Original Statement Censored

The above statement was censored as it was claimed that I am a banned user named Raspor. I have no idea who Raspor is. My guess is Raspor is some guy who's POV frightens you. I assume this because I was called a "troll" and blocked because I tried to make comments on a discussion page. I did NOT change the article. I simply challenged the article's POV and that got me banned. BTW, I did receive supportive comments from some users.

I am a forty year old white male living in Alexandria Virginia near the nation's capitol. I don't need to hide behind a user name. Hopefully the crowd here is not dangerous. My name is Will space Nesbitt. My office phone number is seven zero three 765 zero 300. I am a real estate investor with an office at River Towers in Alexandria. Feel free to call me during business hours to confirm my identity. I started [American Affordable Mortgage LLC] with my wife. She now owns my portion of the company and I focus on real estate. I need another time consuming hobby like editting Wikipedia about as much as I need a hole in the head.

I guess my only motivator for responding to this "banishment" is to prove to the numbnuts who are so confident in their judgement just how easy it is to be wrong. This leads me to believe that this site is "editted" by an under-thirty crowd, for moderation and wisdom come with age, but age also withers the arrogant certitude of youth. Perhaps, it should be painfully obvious that if you can't figure out the difference between a new user and a former user "Raspor" then you probably don't know the Origins of the Universe.

I made a few comments on the discussion paged and I was blocked. In my relatively limited experience on Wikipedia, Wikipedia editors don't understand how to present information in a neutral point of view and they banish those who point this out. I'm now convinced that Wikipedia is a joke, or at the very least, I'm quite convinced that the goal of neutral POV is unobtainable.

If you search my name on the net, you may discover that I am a veteran of the Dotcom wars. I am grateful for my banishment in some small respects, because I've contacted a few of my old comrades in arms and told them that Wikipedia probably needs a competitor. (If one already exists please email me at the address above.) MSNBC, FOX News and CNN all claim to have neutral POV's, but none of them have neutral POV's. I think that a conservatively-oriented Wikipedia might mirror the success of FOX News and conservative radio.

I have no desire to wade back into the hostile forum of "Intelligent Design" where I know I will be shouted down. I can say, with at least as much certitude as those who are convinced that I am some other banned user, that the Intelligent Design article is not so-much about Intelligent Design, as it is a collaborative effort to conclusively prove that Intelligent Design is a flawed concept.

For the record, I'd like to state my position on Intelligent Design. I don't know if Intelligent Design is a good theory or not. I browsed to the article to learn what the theory was all about. It was quickly evidently that one cannot learn anything more about Intelligent Design from this article other than a lot of people think Intelligent Design is wrong-headed. I have only argued that the presentation of the theory should be separated from the debunking of the theory. I have not argued that the theory has any merit. I used three examples: Bigfoot, Zeus, and Abraham Lincoln. Bigfoot and Zeus have more latitude in their articles than Intelligent Design. Not once on the entire Zeus page does it say that there is no scientific evidence that Zeus (or any other Olympian) ever lived atop any mountains in Greece. I also gave an example of how the A. Lincoln article could be written with the same "neutral" POV as the Intelligent Design page. Then I was called names, shouted down and banned ...

I think one respondant summed up my perception of the opposition view point quite succinctly:

The idea of intelligent design relies on a supernatural entity to explain a physical phenomenon. This is the realm of philosophy and religion, and by definition not science. Do you honestly think that this is unsubstantiated? Do honestly even think that it is opinion? Trishm 03:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am no expert about Intelligent Design. I came to this site to learn about Intelligent Design, but this statement (which seems to be the majority opinion) seems to indicate that there total ignorance about the theory among those who want to censor the idea. Trishm states, "The idea of intelligent design relies on a supernatural entity to explain a physical phenomenon."

Here are a few quotes from the article on Wikipedia about imaginary numbers:

In mathematics, an imaginary number (or purely imaginary number) is a complex number whose square is a negative real number. Imaginary numbers were defined in 1572 by Rafael Bombelli. At the time, such numbers were thought not to exist, much as zero and the negative numbers were regarded by some as fictitious or useless. Many other mathematicians were slow to believe in imaginary numbers at first, including Descartes who wrote about them in his La Géométrie, where the term was meant to be derogatory."
Despite their name, imaginary numbers are as "real" as real numbers."

In other words, imaginary in this context does not indicate "not real". Similary in the case of Intelligent Design, "supernatural" does not mean "magical" or "imaginary". Let me state again (because the readers here seem to have pretty short attention spans) that I am not arguing for or against Intelligent Design. What I'm trying to do is reveal the depth of the ignorance surrounding this concept.

I don't know anything about Intelligent Design. I haven't read the theory. I came here to read about the theory because I assumed that reasonable scientists much smarter than me have spent time exploring the real possibility that the universe was created. There are many plausible origins for the universe. I suppose Creationism (not Creationism Myth) can't be ruled out conclusively. Thus, if one was going to discuss the possiblity of a "entity" "designing" or "creating" the universe, that entity may or may not be of this universe. If the creator was of the universe the creator would be natural. If the creator was beyond the universe then the creator would be supernatural.


According to Trishm, "This (thought) is the realm of philosophy and religion, and by definition not science." I am not arguing for or against any particular theory of the origins of the universe. I don't know how often I have to say that or how I can make that thought more plain. I'm not sure if I agree with Trishm's statement or not. I'm sure Rafael Bombelli got that type of argument many times when he tried to explain the concept of imaginary numbers. I don't know where the line is between science, philosophy and religion. I believe (but don't know) that it's possible to theorize about a creator from strictly a scientific basis. In fact, I can't imagine why this theory couldn't be serious science. However, I am not a scientist and I might be ignorant in these matters. Is every unproven and/or unprovable theory considered philosophy? So when Einstien wrote the Theory of Relativity, was it just a philosophical entrise until Enola Gay saw dawn over Hiroshima?

Lastly, Trishm retorts, "Do you honestly think that this is unsubstantiated?"

No, I think that opinion is not only substantiated, it's found in quite literally every other sentence and nearly every footnote in the article. My point is, it doesn't matter if the point is unsubstiated or not. I doesn't matter if Intelligent Design is right or wrong. The point is you should separate the debunking from the theory. You guys are way too emotional and you have way too much involved in proving the theory wrong. You need to come to grips with the fact that nothing anyone writes on these page will change anyone's mind about this topic.

The theory should be presented completely without challenge and then below that the rebuttal should begin. Make the rebuttal as long as you like. Prove that Intelligent Design is totally baloney. I think the casual reader will gain much more and is much more likely to read if the rebuttal is not interwoven into the article.

Here's a quick template:

Top Bigfoot is a big hairy primate. Bottom Most scientists dispute the existance. No bones or remains have every been found. Eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate, etc.

Here's what you have:

According to believers, Bigfoot is a big hairy primate whose existance is generally not accepted by the scientific community. Joe Blow saw a bigfoot, but eyewitnesses are undependable. Plus they've never found any bones.

In current format, the Intelligent Design article is nearly unreadable by anyone.

Feel free to visit

You might find them more to your liking. Please do not do that on the talk page because it makes people think you are trolling..__Filll 23:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../7/0/2E/User_talk%7E70.108.89.17.html"