Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all

Alvarez, W.; Asaro, F.; Michel, H.V.; and Alvarez, L.W.; 1982. Iridium anomaly approximately synchronous with terminal Eocene extinctions. Science, 216: 888

Sloan, R.E.; Rigby, Jr., J.K.; Van Valen, L.M.; and Gabriel, D.; 1986. Gradual dinosaur extinction and simultaneous ungulate radiation in the Hell Creek Formation. Science, 232: 629-633

Rigby, Jr., J.K.; Newman, K.R.; Smit, J.; Van Der Kaars, S.; Sloan, R.E.; and Rigby, J.K.; 1987. Dinosaurs from the Palaeocene part of the Hell Creek Formation, McCone County, Montana. Palaios, 2: 296-302

J.C. Briggs, 1994. Mass Extinction: fact or fallacy? In: Glen, W., 1994; How Science Works in the Debates; In: The Mass Extinction Debates: How Science Works in a Crisis, W. Glen (ed.); Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, California, p.233,234

Sloan, R.E.; Rigby, Jr., J.K.; Van Valen, L.M.; and Gabriel, D.; 1986. Gradual dinosaur extinction and simultaneous ungulate radiation in the Hell Creek Formation. Science, 232:629

Fastovsky, D.E.; and Dott, Jr., R.H.; 1986. Sedimentology, stratigraphy, and extinctions during the Cretaceous-Paleogene transition at Bug Creek, Montana. Geology, 14:279-282

MacLeod, K.G.; and Huber, B.T.; 1996. Strontium isotopic evidence for extensive reworking in sediments spanning the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary at ODP Site 738. Geology, 24:463-466

Ollson and Liu, pp.127-139; cited by Oard, 1995; Polar Dinosaurs and the Genesis Flood. Creation Research Quarterly)

Fastovsky, D.E. and Weishampel, D.B.; 1996, The Evolution and Extinction of the Dinosaurs; Cambridge Univ. Press, London, p.385

References complete for the K/T boundary. Further info was not allowed by the server, as it did not allow the quotes on the subject to go past a certain word limit. Anyhow, the info's there.

"Defining the K/T boundary based on the last dinosaur is also a circular definition, since scientists claim that the dinosaurs only lived in the Mesozoic when the presence of a dinosaur AUTOMATICALLY DEFINES the strata as Mesozoic."

"For instance, dinosaur remains from France and India were discovered in what were considered ‘Tertiary’ strata. The strata were subsequently redefined as ‘Cretaceous’." (ref.2,3)

Edge, I apologize for the Lysenko remark. "Argue the point, not the person". I think we both could learn a bit from that statement, for the future's sake. Although I think you are in error in your beginning framework, we can both agree to disagree, at least on this point. I think that your latest example only confirms what I was trying to relay to you concerning the fallability of basing strict numbers upon fossil interpretations (as well as letting the fossils do the strata dating, as well as determining the known relative age). The material is there for you to examine, and I feel that, for the limits of this page, I presented the case as thoroughly as possible. Take care.[This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-26-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-26-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-26-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-26-2003]

Interesting article on what what we were originally discussing:
More Evidence Against So-Called Paleokarst | Answers in Genesis

Radiometric content is content, nothing more. It is only by uniformitarian assumption and model that we assign isotopic content an age due to assumed uninterupted process. The age model was erected by Lyell, father of uniformitarianism (to a degree). But, as the above article shows, if interpretations based upon his model of stratigraphy are shown by the evidence to be in error, and our current age models are based upon his assumptions, doesn't that put an amount of contingency on the ages we assign to isotopic content from samples that come from those same stratigraphic layers?[This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 07-23-2003]