Evidence for an Old Earth

Just to make soem general points :1) We don't need great accuracy in radiometric dating to show that the Earth is far older than Young Earth Creationism allows. If all the dates were ten times greater than they should be (and there's no reason to think that they are even nearly that bad) then the Earth would be old.2) Isochrons ARE a solution to some of the problems you mention - especially initial concentrations of daughter product.3) The site calls the assumptions underlying radiometric dating "arbitrary" which is false. Constancy of decay rate is strongly supported by the evidence. The others can be and should be checked for by the geologist taking the samples4) Neutrinos VERY rarely interact with nucleii. That suggestion is not even plausible.5) Studies to produce calibrations for radiocarbon have found no sign of any significant variation in the decay rate.6) Temperature and pressure do not affect radioactive decay rate except in extreme conditions that could not exist on Earth.There are probably more errors - I'm no expert, but how can you call this a trustworthy source ? And why do you "firmly" beleive a site dedicated to defending a religious belief in a Young Earth AGAINST science ?

I'm afraid that you don't understand the problems of translation. Translations do not completely preserve meaning - ambiguities may be added or lost, idioms may be misunderstood there may be no exact equivalent to a word. That is why Muslims insist that the Arabic rendition of the Quran is the only authoritative version.In the case of the Bible there are even a few words where the meaning has been lost.