Credible?

I suspect that if you looked into the history of all of those claims that you presented, you would find that they were made by people not well qualified to make them. I prefer to believe the scientific mainstream, who generally are experts.

I note that you do not give references, to scientific literature for any of the 12 claims. Until you do, it is just internet rumor.

 

Galaxies wind themselves up too fast...
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds

Stars closer to the center travel faster, and stars further out travel more slowly. It's well documented. The same phenomenon is observed in our own solar system, and even in water going down a drain. BTW - It's well documented and readily observable that, at the average rate of travel, it takes a star an average of 250,000,000 years to rotate around the galaxy once.

Comets disintegrate too quickly... According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years.
First, this has nothing to do with evolution. Second, the claim that all comets are "supposed to be the same age as the solar system" is incorrect. Third, even if we assume that a comet is 5 billion years old, one cannot assume that a comet's orbit has been the same for 5 billion years.

Not enough mud on the sea floor... Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.
This assertion fails to account for plate tectonics, which forces ocean deposits to periodically push up to create dry land.

Not enough sodium in the sea... Every year, rivers7 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean.
Ocean salinity has waxed and waned according to the fossil record. The amount of sodium depositied has not been regular. Nor has the amount of sudium leaving. But this statement fails to take this into account.

The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast... Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease
Again, this has nothing to do with evolution. It also does not take into account that we have eight other planets that also have magnetic fields which wax and wane.

Many strata are too tightly bent.... the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred.
Cracking does not occur in the manner described when material is under pressure. Additionally, the existence of water is inconsequential when strata are bent under pressure. Again, something that is observable, yet absent in this explanation.

Injected sandstone shortens geologic "ages."
If this were true, then all the ages would be "incorrect" in the same time frame, and that simply is not the case. Additionally, it would not explain geological ages in deposits which are devoid of sandstone.

Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
Not the pulonium halo arguement again. If this were true, then there would be randomness in the fossil records as far as aging. Instead, there's a regular pattern. You never see a Wooly Mannoth older than a T Rex, and vice versa.

Not enough stone age skeletons.
This assumes that the majority of dead animals were left to become fossilized. On the contrary. Most dead animals were eaten. Even among bones, fossilization is an uncommon event.

Helium in the wrong places.
This assumes that all escaped helium remains in the atmosphere. That ain't the case. Helium is an element which will combine with other elements to create a molecular structure. Again, easily observable, but absent in this assertion.

Agriculture is too recent
This assumes that modern humans all engaged in agriculture. That wasn't the case. CroMagon was just as smart and cunning as we are, yet they hunted. There was no need for all Cro Magnon civilizations to engage in agriculture. Even today, there are many civilizations that hunt and don't engage in agriculture, so using this as a litmus test is incorrect.

History is too short....According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago.
Not true. There are written records considerably older. Only written language AS WE KNOW IT has been in existence for the last several thousand years. Again, you find certain recording customs at certain times, without overlap. Yet this assertion fails to account for this.

 

In the case of comets, short-period comets like Halley's Comet come from the Kuiper Belt, just a little beyond Pluto. (we've confirmed this belt; some of the larger objects out there have been confirmed visually.

The Oort cloud is known because of the orbits of the long-period comets from them. By observing these comets, we can (using Kepler's laws) discover their orbits and therefore their apohelion. They are all from the same zone around the sun. We know it's a cloud rather than a belt, because long-period comets come from all directions, while short period ones are almost always aligned with the plane of the Solar System.

Every now and then, an object from one of these areas is disturbed in it's orbit and falls toward the sun. Since they are made mostly of ice and methane, they evaporate after a number of circuits. But new ones appear. No mystery.

At the rate we see short-period comets, the Kuiper belt is unlikely to be depleted for several billion years. We have no idea how many objects are in the Oort cloud, but since we still see comets coming from that zone, it must still be active. I'm not aware of any scientist who thinks the Kuiper belt is refilled by the Oort cloud.

 

Easy test for the "not enough stone age skeletons" idea. How many modern skeletons exist? Bones don't last long under normal burial conditions, a few years at most.

Consider how many deer skeletons you find, even where deer are plentiful. They get scattered and decay. For most of our existance it was like that. Buried, they rot even faster.

 

about the galaxies - don't really "wind up". Instead, they rotate almost like a solid disk. The cause is attributed to invisible matter that surrounds our galaxies. There is additional evidence for the "dark matter" in that the gravitational fields from the matter also distort light from more distant galaxies. This acts to keep the spiral arms from "winding up". Some galaxies even have a strange straight bar that would otherwise get curled over time!

Additionally, as galaxies collide, fresh arms are generated with tidal affects.

 

Then there should be an awful lot of artifacts. Don't cha think?

Link to the rest of the article:
Where are all the people?

 

They didn't make things out of plastic, for the most part our ancient ancestors made things our of biodegradable objects.

Also, just because some ancient people buried their dead, doesn't mean they all did.

The logic behind this AiG response just isn't there. Let's say the world's 10k years old, then shouldn't we all be up to our ears with all sorts of fossilized animals?

 

So we have acknowledged that "where are all the bodies?" is hooey. But now it's shifted to "artifacts".

It's true. There are a great number of human artifacts, many, many times more than we find human ramains. Which is what you would expect.

Did you think that there weren't?

 

Meatros will disagree with you there.

 

Only if he's going to assert that there should be "be an awful lot of artifacts" or that there should be around 4 billion+ artifacts as your 'source' seems to assert.

In other words, don't put words in my mouth John. I know it's a hard habit for you to break, but I think you'll grow as a person if you stop assuming things.

 

I can only point out that the number of actual artifacts we have, greatly outnumber human remains. Why not? In many places in rural America, arrowheads are still routinely found, while it's a truly rare instance of human remains being found.

Pottery shards are common things in many parts of the world, as are worked stones. These persist for many, many years. Most human artifacts rot away, too.

Meatros is merely making an observation that people make few things that last for millenia. I doubt very much that he'd insist that we don't have many artifacts of things that do.

Why don't you ask him, since he didn't actually make a statement on that issue?