Here the 2 of the 7 evidences under the catagory of "facts about the moon"
I thought there were several new twists here some of which I have never
seen and the others seem to have come from Walter Brown. Now what about
ultraviolet radiation having been long thought to the cause of the
dust,that is not the original explanation for the dust yet this makes it
sound as if that has always been a concern. How confusing can this get?
1 - Moon dust. Ultraviolet light changes moon rocks into dust. It had long
been predicted that a thick layer of dust (20-60 miles
[32-96.5 km], caused by ultraviolet radiation on the moon's
4-billion-year-old surface, must cover the moon's surface. But scientists
were astonished to learn that there is not over 2-3 inches [5.08-7.62 cm]
of dust-just the amount expected if the moon was only a few
thousand years.-pp. 15, 17.
2 - Lunar soil. The dirt on the moon's surface does not show the amount of
soil mixing it should have, if the moon were very
old.-p. 17. 3 - Lunar isotopes. Short-term radioactive isotopes (uranium
236 and thorium 230) have been found in the collected
moon rocks. These isotopes do not last long and rather quickly turn into
lead. If the moon were even 50,000 years old, these short-life
radioisotopes would long since have decayed into lead. The moon cannot be
older than several thousand years.-p. 17.
Hey, I guess I was wrong about the moon, it is young! :-)