General, are you reading the responses? From this post of yours it doesn't look like it.
You have made a statment about the "steady state" not being reached. You support this with an unreferenced "scientists place the imbalance at 35%"
Would you care to support this? And explain what the implications are more carefully?
No one that I have every come across ever does this ---"people use it, get a really old age, and from that assume the world is millions or billions of years old." Where do you get the idea that someone does? Please explain the connections.
Has has been stated above, but you apparently missed. The carbon dating does not, as you say, support a billions of year old earth. NO ONE claimed it did! Why do you keep bringing that up?
What carbon dating does do when complete with it's cross checking against other methods is give us a minimum age of some 10,000's of years. It is a useful archeological tool, it is not really very useful for the time scales of concern to those interested in evolution. It isn't clear why it is even being discussed here.
(unless, just perhaps, you can't tolerate an earth of greater than 10,000 years even. Then you are going to have to bounce around trying to make up reasons why this method (of many) gives ages greater than that. There is so very much to explain that is going to be so very, very hard. )
™ Version 4.2