The Creationists' Nightmare

[Undeceived]

K/Ar is accurate and not all over the place as you suggest.

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/..._Earth.htm
Scroll down to table one and look at Hualalai or Russian volcano.

Contaminated with the daughter isotope? This statement alone proves your ignorance of radiometric dating. It's the daughter isotopes that scientists are interested in (well, more precisely the ratio of the daughter isotope to the parent isotope). You absurdly talk about 'contamination' with the daughter isotopes when in fact this is exactly what's being counted.

"Contamination" means that there is an excess of the daughter isotope to start, in K-Ar's case, Argon. That makes the rock look older than it is. You might hope the daughter will escape into the atmosphere to balance out, but that's not always the case. If it does not escape during forming, it will not at all. Experiments on recent volcanoes have shown this. Basalt, for example, is no longer used or shouldn't be used because of its excess 40Ar (explanation: http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html ) Some old-earth advocates choose to ignore this, as you can see in the "oldest rocks" discovered in Canada, which are... basalt. ( http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/157...in_canada/ )
If the rocks of recent volcanoes are not good for dating, how can we be sure past ones are?