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.
That is nonsensical. The same laws of physics apply to a river in flood versus a trickling stream. You are completely misrepresenting science in your attempts to frame your own theories.
Evolutionists wrongly binned radioisotope decay as a sort of invariant natural law, which we now have seen is not the case.
You can't even frame the debate properly. Isotopic decay is a function of physics. And the age of the Earth has nothing to do with evolution per se.
You keep saying we don't believe in scientific method, but fail to cite an example.
Are you kidding me? I just did - the fact that your theories require several orders of magnitude in a change of the rate of decay for radioactive isotopes - when there is absolutely no science to support such a theory.
You may have the last word, debating young Earth creationists is as pointless as debating true believe AGW proponents, and for the exact same reasons - they start with a belief system and then create data and ignore facts to buttress that system.