So Thor being hit in the back of the head with a rock and budging are things that happens all of the time in comics, right? What we are talking about is basically IDENTICAL to that showing. A Boulder causing Thor to fall over and you considered the people that did it weaklings and Doomsday pounding on Booster Gold. The difference here is, Thor after that showing tanked an all out attack from an amped Galactus. You then went on and asked about what power level was Galactus at (we actually have evidence of the power levels of the characters in DOS). So not only did you use the Boulder as hard, concrete evidence of Thor durability but you asked for fts from an amped Galactus to discredit Thor durability. I'm trying to figure out why you're not applying that same logic here and yes, Thor not only survived a planet being destroyed in the same comic, he TANKED an attack from the most powerful Galactus on panel. Crazy thing is, you accept Superman statement about Doomsday POSSIBLY being stronger but you turned an eye on the statement of Galactus being more powerful ever and asked for fts. Lol!!!