Again, if we take Velikovsky completely out of the loop and simply
restate what we know about Venus based on direct observation,
we can say:

1. It is molton, as a young planet would be.
2. Its surface features are pristine, as a young planet would be.
3. Its impact crater count is low, as would be appropriate for a
young planet.
4. Compared to the other planets, its rotation is anomalous, as we
might expect if it had not been formed at the same time as the
other planets.
5. If it is a young body, then there is no problem explaining
why it hasn't cooled over billions of years.
6. It if is a young body, then its face has never been resurfaced,
and so there is no need to postulate some exotic geological process
responsible for resurfacing it.


What incontrovertible fact insists that Venus cannot be a
recent astronomical body? If no such fact can be found, then
it behooves us to reconsider our assumptions about Venus.

- Laird