Well, I don't have all day, so I'll look at the first one.
The Earth: How Old Does it Look? by Carl Wieland
His argument is that the Earth does not actually look old, we are just conditioned to think that it looks old. If you study it carefully, you'll see that it is actually quite young.
Argument 1: Everything should be eroded flat by now if the earth were billions of years old. Geological processes for uplifting are not enough.
My counter-argument: But they are enough. Lava and ash from volcanic eruptions, uplift of plutonic inclusions, and uplift of land area from compressional forces is enough to counteract erosion.
Argument 2: There is not enough helium on Earth to account for a 3 billion year old atmosphere.
My counter-argument: It has been shown that the amount of helium lost is balanced by the amount produced.
Argument 3: a)Fossil fish should not be possible unless there is some sort of rapid burial, explained by Noah's flood.
My counter-argument: I have no problem with the idea that rapid burial would be one necessity to having a good fossil. But how does this suggest against an old Earth?
b)There are examples of fossils which were obviously freeze framed.
My counter-argument: What does this have to do with the age of the Earth?
Argument 4: a)Coal has been shown to be able to be formed relatively quickly.
I've never seen this before, so I'll have to read more before I make up my mind.
b)Stalactites and stalagmites can be created relatively quickly.
My counter-argument: Yes, they can be formed quickly. But what takes a long time is the cave forming process itself, which would put many caves well before Noah's flood.
c)Opal can be created relatively quickly, not in millions of years.
I don't know anything about that, so I'll need to look more into that.
d)Fossilization can happen relatively quickly.
My counter-argument: Well, yes, but there are many different types of fossils. Not all form by the same process.
Argument 5: The oceans are too salty. If the Earth were billions of years old, they should be much saltier.
My counter-argument: There are factors that can balance the amount of salt entering the oceans and carrying them out.
Finally, the author objects to how we view the concept of "old." Yes, I agree, 6,000 years is a long time. But that's within a certain concept of human time. A thousand years is a long time in human time. There's also ecological time (a thousand years is a significant amount), evolutionary time (it is hardly anything at all) and geological time (equivalent to how we see a second). It's based on what perspective we see it from. If you were to tell me that Baghdad has been a city for thousands of years, I would agree that, indeed, that is a long time. If you were tell me that the lunar highlands on the Moon have been there for about a billion years, I would say that that is a relatively recent event. It's all perspective.
I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to look at all of those. Thank you for your time.
