I'm no expert, but i'll take a quick stab.
In order:
1) Sediment subduction rates are only an issue if you ignore that a) organic sediments dissolve or are turned into biomass, b) sediment is not of a uniform and permanent volume but is compacted during subduction and c) some sediment winds up accreting on the continental layers as rocks. This is basically how British Columbia formed.
2) There is no requirement for strata to be globally uniform, as Hamm seems to think. Gaps and bends in strata are actually expected, as erosion, drought, and other natural processes can effect strata formation. Further, evidence from across the planet correlates across multiple measurements. This is basically a "the geological column doesn't exist" argument worded differently. And that argument fails as well.
3) Is a stretching of the truth and some falsehoods. The soft tissue was not flexible and soft when found. It softened when accidentally hydrated during the cleaning of the fossil. DNA has been found and dated from samples that are between 10,000 and 300,000 years old, which is FAR older than a YEC view would allow. And the scientist who made the discovery, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, a Christian herself, agrees on the age of the find. Basically, Hamm is distorting facts here.
4) This is just bad science. Or bad math. A 25% drop in solar output isn't a 25% drop in surface temp. Thanks to the outheating effect of being, well, a planet, it's 7%. And that is in a closed system with no feedback mechanisms, like greenhouse effects. The Earth's atmosphere was FULL of heavy greenhouse gasses for a long time, like methane.
5) Fluctuations in the magnetic field only prove a 6,000 year earth if they are constant. They are not. Also, Barnes' work doesn't hold up to evidence, and his measurements are of dipole strength, not field strength Dipole strength can vary while field strength doesn't, so his model is unpredictive and flawed.
6) Radioactive decay is complicated, but basically, the experiments that Hamm likes to point to are awful. They do not properly account for almost any variables or outside effects. Also, if the radioactive decay happened all at once, the radioactive HEAT would have as well. This would have fried the entire planet.
7) Sleight-of-hand. C14 dating is limited in how far it can go back, so if you hand it a sample from, say 650 million years ago, it'll peg at whatever the max date it find is. It's akin to driving a car with a speedometer that only goes up to 90 mph, then attaching a rocket to the back and taking that beast up to 200 mph. The speedometer will only read 80. Hamm is being disingenuous here by using the wrong tool for the job, like trying to use a jeweler's loupe to fix a leaky pipe, then claiming that jeweler's loupes don't work.
8) Assumes a) uniform age for comets, which is factually false and b) lack of a cometary replenishment. Uniform comet age is already known to be wrong, and the Kuiper Belt has been observed, where there are LOTS and LOTS of cometary replacements. And that doesn't even count the Oort Cloud, which is a hypothetical additional source.
9) Based on work by Austin and Humphreys, who drastically miscalculated sodium loss rates by omitting a lot of mechanisms which change the time scale. When they are taken into account, the numbers match current scientific models, not YEC models.
10) More sleight of hand. The SALT was 250 million years old. The bacteria has not had it's age verified, so it's unknown. Since we're still figuring out what's going on there, this is just the God of the Gaps, not proof of YEC.
It's worth noting that even if the evidence Hamm is relying on was correct and properly examined (which it isn't) none of Hamm's evidence supports a 6000 year old earth. In many cases, it supports an earth many times older. Only by introducing miracles as scientific fact does Hamm wind up at the 6000 year age. And if it's miraculous, fine. But then it by definition is not scientific proof of anything.
