When going into a debate, a little research ahead of time on the oppositions view helps

I'm still waiting on your timeline
And then we can examine the geological aspects of your claim

Will do Wetdog. I forgot about that. But I’ll see what I can put together.

If you were to look up how carbon 14 dating works you wouldn't have had to ask this.

I have read that scientists use the C14 and C12 ratio to figure out how much C14 was in an organism at the time of death. The problem with the theory is that the C14 and C12 ratio is not stable and therefore is an inaccurate way to calculate age. Evolutionists say that after the Big Bang it would take the earth about 30,000 years to reach carbon equilibrium in the atmosphere. The carbon levels are still not stable, which means the earth the earth may not be as old as you say.

Some of us don't have the time to read all those articles. Others can't because of our physical limits.
There was a well off business man that was busy all the time. It was getting close to Christmas and since he had no time for his aging mother he thought it would be nice to get her a gift and money was no object.
Well his mother was almost blind and could no longer see to read and her son knew how much she loved to read the Bible. So he bought a parrot that had been sent to the best of schools for learning. The guy thought that would be a great gift for his dear old mother. All she would have to do would be to quote the book, chapter and verse of the bible and the parrot would read it to her or even quote some verses. So he paid top dollar for the bird and had it delivered to his mother a few days before Christmas. Well since her son was too busy to see his mother at Christmas, he waited a few after the holidays and when he got the time he called her and asked her how she liked the bird he sent her. Her reply was that it was alright but it was a little too tough to eat !

You misunderstand. The 14c and 12c ratio is useful specifically because the RATIO is NOT stable. The change in the ratio is what gives the measurement of the time elapsed.

12c IS stable so of course the ratio changes as 14 c gets smaller....... after the death of an organism.

You could also measure the amount of Nitrogen 14. 14C decays into 14N and 14N IS stable. So you can look at a sample and by measuring 14N you will know how much 14c has decayed and therefore the time span.

So if you want to believe Doug Batchelor that the measurements are inaccurate.......then you could also conclude that the Earth may be a lot older.......not younger.

Your problem, and Doug Batchelor's problem, is that carbon 14 dating has been tested and correlated against other methods of dating.....like dendrochronology. The counting of tree rings. There is actually a correction curve that is used to adjust for POSSIBLE variations in the initial ratio

Your other problem is that the Earth's carbon cycle has nothing to do with the big bang. Since the Earth didn't even exist until 9 billion years after the BB. And, the Earth's carbon cycle is a closed loop that recycles carbon atoms over time. It has nothing to do with the BB

The half-life of carbon is just 5,730 years. Since that is the case, how do evolutionists get millions of years out of the dating process?

Need to do your homework here Husky. But in short, at 5730 years half is gone. Now after another 5730 years another half of the remaining half is gone.... and so on and so on and so on. The point in which it could no longer be measured is around 60,000 years. The most accurate results are within the first 20,000 years or so.