A Chinese scientist has lent support to the idea that the sun is shrinking (see Creation magazine, Vol. 11 Nos. 1-3). Professor Wan Lai, a research fellow at the Shanghai observatory of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, says the sun has shrunk 410 kilometres in the 273 years from 1715 to 1987. This is an average shrinkage of about 1.5 kilometres a year.

The Australian,
April 14, 1990.

If this shrinkage has always been 1.5 kilometres a year, it means the solar system cannot be billions of years old as evolutionists claim. At this rate, only one million years ago the sun would have been twice its current diameter. Ten million years ago it would have been too large for life to exist on earth. And 210 million years ago the sun would have been touching the surface of the earth. This is more in keeping with the creationist belief that the solar system is only thousands, not millions or billions, of years old

This is one example of many reports of the sun shrinking. There have been reports that the sun oscillates which accounts for the records of it's growth, however, those reports seem to be based more on evolutionary conjection than facts. An older article that discusses the history of this debate can be found at this link http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i2/sun.asp

In your book you say (and I am not saying you are wrong) that we gain 18 pounds of C-14 in our atmosphere, and burn/lose 15 pounds of C-14(this is annually) in our atmosphere. But in the Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell he states that we are losing more than we are gaining. Which one of these is wrong, or is it just that some years we gain more and some we lose more?

And my second question: Does the similarities of collagen found in dinosaur bones and chickens prove that chickens evolved from dinosaurs?

All research I have seen on a number of different levels from the Institute for Creation Research to various authors all show that our C-14 is gaining. I'm not sure what is going on with Ferrell's statement as I haven't seen it myself.
As for the chicken and dino similarities the answer is NO NO NO! There are genetic similarities to all kinds of things. They simply like to point out the similarities that fit their goal and bias. It's just like humans. They say we're almost 95% similar to a chimp (used to say 98.6% but better DNA studies haved changed this). The problem is a difference of a millionth of a percent is fatal. If you compare other things in our body we are closer to the sunflower. In other cases, the pig (our heart etc.). This doesn't prove relationship, only a common designer.

Here is the statement by Ferrell:
Chapter 4-The Age of the Earth-Subsection 25(or p.136 in The Evolution Handbook)
"Carbon-14 Disintegration- The present worldwide buildup of radiocarbon in the atmosphere would have produced all the world's radiocarbon in several thousand years. Yet, ironically, it is Carbon 14 that is used by evolutionist scientists in an attempt to prove that life existed on our planet for millions of years! Robert Whitelaw, a nuclear and engineering expert at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, found that the production rate is not equal to the disintegration rate. In fact, his calculations reveal a recent turning on of the C-14 clock,otherwise the two factors would be balanced. Whitelaw's research indicates that the clock was turned on approximately 8,000 years ago. (See chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods, for more on radiocarbon dating.)"

Personally, I like your proof on the age of the earth using Carbon 14 dating ( The equilibrium would be reached in 30,000 years but it has not yet been reached...).
And what exactly are the radiometric clocks? Im sorry, I have had graphs and articles explaining the clocks but I just havent made sense of them. I understand the half life principles, just not the clocks, and the resetting/turning of the clocks.

And also, what are the best proofs for showing that dinosaurs did not evolve into birds? I have read most of your book, " Doubts About Creation- Not After This", and remember reading about the intricacies of the birds feathers' structure, but I forget the other proofs and cannot look them up because my friend is borrowing my book.
Thanks Mr. Young

Sorry, I have had a big misconception. When he says "the production rate is not equal to the disintegration rate", it just simply means they are not equal. I ran across the statement and concluded that the production rate does not equal the rate of disintegration (in that the c-14 is disintegrating faster than it is being produced)-when in fact he was just implying that the two are not at an equlibrium.
Sorry, my mistake.

The problem with dinosaur to bird evolution is that we lack completely all transitional forms of scales to feathers, bone make-up, four chambered hearts etc. The only evidence they have is they have a bird with teeth and claws on the end of its wings. There are fully formed birds that have been found underneath the supposed missing links and you can't have a bird turning into birds if they are already birds. Today we have no birds with teeth in their beeks but we find plenty in the fossil record, it is just an extinct species. Likewise the hoatizin and ostrich have claws on their wings, even a chicken has a type of claw on the end of its wing. Even Feducia, a leading expert in so called bird evolution is denying the supposed missing links and is saying they are nothing but birds.