I'm still not sure what your point is, SoSick. Do you read the links that you give here? The one about drilling said that the bottom of the sample was dated to 2.7 billion years old. Usually a suitable radiometric dating method (i.e. not K-Ar for very young samples) would be employed to discover this; it is not just a guess. This presumably is why people who want to disprove an old earth occasionally seem to find the time and the means to go get some samples and date them with methods they know will provide erroneous results so that they can say, "Look! We got an erroneous result!"

It's well known that the earth is hot inside. It's also well known that the heat comes from radioactive decay. I honestly hope you would have picked up some geophysical knowledge from the things you say you've been reading. But you seem to want to be presenting the idea that this heat continuously reaches up to the very top of the crust, everywhere. You seem to think that a permanent snow layer is not possible because the earth should be causing the ice to melt. I don't understand why you think this is a logical possibility.

Maybe it would be a good idea for you to have a serious read of the Wiki about glaciers before you carry on in this vein. It explains, for example, that the ice in polar glaciers is always below freezing. It also explains that while basal flow (moving along meltwater) is one way for a glacier to move, it is not the only way. The frozen polar glaciers move by a process called plastic flow, which is also similar to the way rock can move and deform under the surface of the earth. The processes involve great pressures.

Antarctica is the coldest place on earth. The subglacial lakes which have been discovered would be caused by geothermal heat venting to the surface. The rest of the surface there is pretty cold, apart from a few volcanoes.