rocks. do. not. glow.
You can't categorically make this statement [well, you just did, so I guess you can, but you'd be wrong]. Many minerals (as in, constituents of rocks) fluoresce (that is, emit visible light, as in "glow") under UV radiation. Rocks can also glow if heated sufficiently. I recognize that you're questioning the Moon reflecting sunlight and quibbling about words, but your assertion above as a general principle
is. just. wrong.
rocks can be visible. they do not glow.
Before you asserted that shining a flashlight on a rock you couldn't see it because it didn't "shine back", that is, reflect light. This is wrong, too. See the definition for "shine" earlier. I forgot the attribution for that - it's definition number 2
here. Sorry about that.
appealing to science which changes all the time and is made up for cash shows you can't even think for yourself.
You're the one who claims science is "made up". I'm the one who uses it because it works and allows me to accomplish things. Science doesn't "change all the time", but new data will cause previously-accepted explanations to be revised or replaced if a new explanation better fits the new (and old) data. You make it sound like this is a bad thing.
Using a process that works to solve problems is not "thinking for myself"? I suggest others do the same because using something that works (like science and math) is better than using something (like superstition or idle conjecture that doesn't fit what we already know) that doesn't; don't you agree? If science were really "made up", don't you think the development of things like the computer you're using would be exceedingly unlikely?
do you seriously think rocks glow?
They can. I've seen it happen. See the first part of this post for some examples. But you really need to stop using less suitable words like "glow" and "shine" when "reflect light" is better.
truth doesn't care what you believe
That's why I use what's known to work, from what have been proven to be reliable sources, and/or verify things, if possible, before relying on them in critical situations. I recommend you (and everyone else) do the same.
or what liars you appeal to.
Newton, Kepler, Einstein, and their ilk have been pretty reliable so far. Sometimes their work is found not to be entirely correct when later data comes along (Newtonian vs Relativistic Mechanics, for instance), but that doesn't mean, say, Newton was "lying", nor does it mean that Classical (Newtonian) Mechanics is not perfectly useful for everyday-scale problems. Most of the ideas from the actual liars and/or incompetents, like Mr. Rowbotham, get exposed and weeded out pretty quickly; avoid those.