i looked a bit, but i didn't see a very important point covered. i've heard a couple distinct criticisms of k-ar dating yielding results much, much older than the observed date for lava flows and eruptions, or their context in the fossil record.
it should be noted that these studies, oft quoted by creationists, are the dates of INCLUSIONS in said lava flows. of course they're going to reveal dates much older, becuase they're dating the rock that has remained unchanged.
a much different date can usually be found several centimeters in any direction. these inconsistencies say nothing about the validity of the test.
has this been mentioned at all?
™ Version 4.2