rationalskepticism.org

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

spearthrower wrote:That the process you're proposing exists has in fact existed from the instant of expansion.

Seeing the bang as the 'common ancestor' makes perfect sense, mountains of evidence indicate as much.

Paul.

That's just all mouth and no trousers.

Go look up what common ancestor means... Oh wait - you're going to show how our (i.e. the rest of the English speaking world) little restricted use of 'common ancestor' doesn't cover the full potential remit that you've arbitrarily decided it should, and while engaging in eccentric semantics, you'll somehow overlook that it's all absolute self-serving bollocks and that anyone with half a clue on the subject knows you're blagging absolute rubbish.

Common ancestor, common starting point for everything in the universe if you like. You pretend that i am out of step with the rest of the English speaking world when everybody here can see that it is YOU feigning ignorance yet again and pretending to have a very low grasp of a most basic obvious analogous expression.

Yes "The big bang = Common ancestor".

Eccentric semantics your talking absolute bollocks thrower.
Paul.