Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[Esquilax]

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."

So we're just supposed to make assumptions not present in the text just to ensure that you're right? Your convenience is the ultimate arbiter here?

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.

No, yeah, the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe is so smart that he has the plants covered, but not smart enough to avoid numerous redundant steps along the way instead of just making the sun. Right.

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

So we're only supposed to take your argument strictly on its own merits without ever considering additional facts that you evidently hadn't considered? Isn't that the same thing as just taking your argument on the basis that it's right, given that obviously you wouldn't consider facts that prove you wrong and then still hold your position?

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...

Probably because I missed it. I took Huggy to task for a similar kind of nonsense not two days ago in another thread though, so that's purely down to not seeing the comment, not inconsistency. Care to link it?