[CharlesWayneCT]

The inference is not by the reader. If you actually click on the link, and read what the article says, you will find this statement, some of which are in bold red letters:

Assumption 2: The rate of change was constant. Scientists assume that radioactive atoms have changes at the same rate throughout time, ignoring the impact of Creation or changes during Noah's flood.

Both Creation and Noah's flood are supernatural forces, and those are the only two examples the article gives as to how the radioactive rate of decay may have changed.

Again, you certainly can disagree that these forces exist or that they could change the rate of decay, but the authors were in no way trying to hide what they were saying her, nor did you have to "infer" it.

BTW, if you don't want to click on the link, the figure in which this assumption is spelled out was posted in this thread, so you can search up and look for it. The words are in the figure so you can't search for them, but it's pretty hard to miss.

[tacticalogic]

Sorry, I misunderstood. I think it's a matter of semantics, and maybe I'm being pedantic. "Inference" is an assumption made by the reader. "Implication" is a tacit assertion made by the author.

In this case the author is implying that the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood is established and empirically verifiable fact that the scientists have failed to account for in their calculations.