Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[John V]

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 said earlier: "We're not told what the source of the light was, but it was there. Assuming it was full spectrum, there was also heat."

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?

God made light in v3, well before the plants were created. I've gotta think that the omnipotent, ominscient creator of the universe made sufficient light for the plants.

So, is every argument that disproves your claims a red herring?

No, every argument that expands my claims into something I didn't specifically argue is a red herring.

And note that the same thing has now gone on from your side. Someone made a remark about fish walking onto land. Others noted that some fish can sort of walk around. Now, the first commenter may have had a lot more in his mind than that one aspect of evolution. But, since he made that specific comment, he was open to specific refutation. I don't see you bitching about that, though...