dating methods are not actually geology but about more atomic matters. They need to prove their case first.
It is geology, and it has been proven. You can even measure the cooling of a granite formation using radiometric dating:
Paleosols
If cooling of a geologic formation is not geology, then what is?
i don't mean the boundary level was laid by water.
Then it would be a very poor marker for the global flood, wouldn't it?
Both sides agree the sedimentary rock strata were laid by water. slow or fast.
No, they don't. Such features as paleosols discussed in the link above were not laid down under water. The Coconino sandstones are another good example. These are fossilized sand dunes from a wind blown desert.
We say over one year time with great segregated flow events.
You say a lot of things. We are interested in the evidence that backs up what you say.
This creationist says the k-t line is the difference in the flood year and the later centuries.
Based on what evidence?
The line doesn;t exist. Just the great difference in rock type and flora/fauna within in it.
How do you explain the iridium signal at the K/T boundary? How do you explain the K/T tektites that date to ~65 million years before present found at the K/T boundary? How do you explain the absence of a single modern mammal below the K/T boundary? What evidence supports your explanations?
it is just about interpretation of practical rocks in the field.
Yes, look to see which interpretation is backed by evidence and which is backed by zero evidence. So far, you are pushing an interpretation backed by zero evidence. The interpretation of standard geology is backed by all of the evidence.