Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[Esquilax]

What I said was:

A. Plants can perform photosynthesis with light from a source other than the sun, and

B. Plants can live for a day without light.

These are demonstrably true. The rest is your attempt to extrapolate into a red herring.

But: plants cannot live without the heat provided by the sun, in fact, no life can. This had been pointed out to you: what, you think just ignoring it makes it okay?

I mean, there's also that whole "no sun means no solar system, means planets just veering off into space," thing, and the fact that every available light source in the universe at that time would not have been sufficient to sustain plant life anyway (plants don't exactly do the bulk of their photosynthesizing, in the main, at night) but hey, why would I want to bring up the red herring of how your solution is completely impossible?

So, is every argument that disproves your claims a red herring? I just feel like we need to know: we probably don't want to waste our time on a baseless presuppositionalist.