> 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.
See above. Without any wind, how could lunar dust be mixed?
> 3 - Lunar isotopes. Short-term radioactive isotopes (uranium
> 236 and thorium 230) have been found in the collected
> moon rocks.
Th-230 is a member of the U-238 decay series and should be in equilibrium
with the U-238 parent. The presence of short-lived Th-230 is no evidence of
a young moon. I don't have my references handy and cannot comment on U-236.
> 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.
See my comment above.
> Hey, I guess I was wrong about the moon, it is young! :-)
This is not to say that the moon could not be young; it's the arguments that
are used to show that the moon is young are faulty.