They didn't get the message.
I'm not sure what message they are getting in fact. Because their summary of the article is, well.... wrong.
Their entire summary crows about how decay rates aren't constant. They get this from.... Well, not the original paper. That's for sure. The paper was about the primordial abundances being off. The Creationists conveniently leave that out of the summary.
They even go so far as to say
These discordant dates should not be evident if the assumption of rate constancy—which underlies radioisotope dating of igneous materials and is used to support the “billions of years” age for the solar system—is accurate.Um.
The article doesn't underscore the “billions of years” age. Even with the corrections applied, it still gave an age of 4.566 billion years.
The Creationists conveniently left that bit out too!
Just goes back to the old joke:
Q: How can you tell a Creationist is lying?
A: His lips are moving.
Thanks to Ted for pointing this out to me.