Do you even grasp the contradiction in what you wrote here? You are claiming that the rate of radioactive decay is highly variable - and then state you believe in natural laws that establish regularity?
That's the problem here - you claim to adhere to the scientific method, and then toss the foundations of such right out the window to adhere to a young Earth viewpoint. And that is why a rigorous scientific debate on this subject is impossible - because you and the young Earth creationist movement make up your 'science' out of whole cloth.
There is no contradiction, unless you insist on believing that physical processes must happen at the same rate all the time. That is, that the flow rate of various rivers must never vary, rainfall each month in a given location must be identical, and so on. But no one believes that sort of process uniformitarianism.
You are failing to distinguish between uniformity of natural law, and uniformity of given process rates. Evolutionists wrongly binned radioisotope decay as a sort of invariant natural law, which we now have seen is not the case. The decay of a radioisotope is subject to underlying causes at the sub-atomic level that can and do vary, it is not a fundamental constant. That's what this article is reluctantly admitting.
You keep saying we don't believe in scientific method, but fail to cite an example. As I pointed out in my last post, only creationists have a sound basis for believing in the scientific method. That's why creationists like Sir Francis Bacon were responsible for developing the scientific method. Evolutionists cannot justify it in their own worldview. That's why post-modernism arose, as a logical outworking of the naturalistic abandonment of the foundations of science.