Your comments on the Ark thread were off topic, so I'll address a couple of points here instead.
Jzyehoshua writes:
At any rate, my point is that we assume many of the factors on which dating methodologies, and thus the age of the earth, are based on, to be the way they are because of Uniformitarianism. Why has Carbon 14 decayed at the same rate? Because that's what it does now. We assume the concept of Uniformitarianism to be true, aka 'the present is the key to the past', and assume that such huge catastrophes - which not only fly in the face of Uniformitarianism but we've now been forced to recognize did actually occur - did not affect carbon levels and the atmosphere. Because if they did, then the dating methodologies would be thrown off.
We have often heard that such dating methodologies are unreliable past 10,000 or 100,000 years. And yet, still they are used to reach these exorbitant dates.
With these two paragraphs you show that you don't know the first thing about Carbon 14 dating. Given this, why should those of us who do know something about it take anything you say seriously?
First, Carbon 14 dating is not used to measure the age of the earth. It is only useful for about 50,000 years.
Second, Carbon 14 dates are calibrated using tree rings and several other annular measures to account for atmospheric fluctuation. The need for this was described by de Vries (1958), and calibration has been a standard part of the method ever since.
Finally, the creationists' RATE Project, that is the subject of this thread, examined the problem of radioactive decay and found that it was indeed stable for some hundreds of millions of years. They didn't accept their own findings, but that is what their data showed.
Next time, read up on Carbon 14 dating in the scientific literature: those creationist websites are lying to you.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.