so its just some extremophiles? what els could take a shift of heat and cold fast enough.
and would this mean that there are clouds on the light side? at 430 degree it is a gas.

so its just some extremophiles? what els could take a shift of heat and cold fast enough.

If it was alive that would be a possibility. Even early life on this planet would have been surviving in very harsh conditions.

and would this mean that there are clouds on the light side? at 430 degree it is a gas.

It would probably be to hot for even that.

At any rate maybe we should swing this back around to being on topic.

Even early life on this planet would have been surviving in very harsh conditions.

not sure they could handle a change of heat over 600 degree in a matter of secondes.

It would probably be to hot for even that.

but if it's to hot for water to be steam. then what is it?
and what makes this "further then steam" thingy stay on the planet that it will freeze again on the dark side? there is no ozon layer and the gravity of mercury is very low compared to us and that of the sun.

At any rate maybe we should swing this back around to being on topic.

i dont think Theism got any knowlets of the universe beside shapes and star formations observed some thousand years ago.
so i dunno how to swing this back to on-topic.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?

Epicurus

Epicurus

I see your Epicurus and raise you a Suzumiya Haruhi.  I've never liked this argument.  It presumes too much on the assertion that any god would be all of what's mentioned, but possibly not any of what isn't.  For example, the god/(ess) could just be unaware of his/her own powers, not realizing what he/she could possibly be doing, just like everyone's favorite genki reality-warping schoolgirl.

Trying to get back on topic as is desired here (let's say this was my plan from the beginning, OK?), this is a problem practically omnipresent in theism.  It always tries to find new ways to assert its own proof, ignoring the most important negative corollary to that: the simple question "How can I be wrong?"

to all the people saying "the bible says god created the sun, moon, and planets, but science says that gravitational forces and bla bla bla." well I think that God made the sun happen with its own gravitational forces.  So in a way, he did what both the atheists and the Christians say.

(this is only like my 2nd time in the WEPR, so cut me some slack, please.)

well I think that God made the sun happen with its own gravitational forces.  So in a way, he did what both the atheists and the Christians say.

Then why does the book have it in the wrong order for that to happen? The sun doesn't come until Gen 1:14-15, while the earth, covered in water and containing plants, was there much earlier.

I see your Epicurus and raise you a Suzumiya Haruhi.  I've never liked this argument.  It presumes too much on the assertion that any god would be all of what's mentioned, but possibly not any of what isn't. 

I guess, though I don't know, that Epicurus specifically meant the christian god with this argument. In which case his point stands.

The sun doesn't come until Gen 1:14-15, while the earth, covered in water and containing plants, was there much earlier.

... weren't you the one correcting me although I was saying exactly that? Or maybe I said light instead of sun or sumfing..

Probably. I must've skimmed over Gen 1:16.

but if it's to hot for water to be steam. then what is it?

Mercury has almost no atmosphere so any water vapor would just burn off into space.

and what makes this "further then steam" thingy stay on the planet that it will freeze again on the dark side?

It just stays frozen on the dark side. What could result in liquid water on Mercury is heat seeping over from the bright side to the dark side and "in between" point between the two sides.

It always tries to find new ways to assert its own proof, ignoring the most important negative corollary to that: the simple question "How can I be wrong?"

Many religions it's considered wrong to even consider you might be wrong.

to all the people saying "the bible says god created the sun, moon, and planets, but science says that gravitational forces and bla bla bla." well I think that God made the sun happen with its own gravitational forces.  So in a way, he did what both the atheists and the Christians say.

What made God necessary for that process? If these forces existed they would be capable of interesting in such a way regardless.