The list of claims attributed to Stansfield are at
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fast.htm From reading the page (and notign that many of the points are common creationist arguments) it is apparent that Stansfield is quoting creationist arguments and that he does NOT endorse them. This appears to be a case of intentional misrepresentation. I also suspect that Stansfield may have given more detailed responses that have been omitted - only one short paragraph is quoted and that seems inadequate.
As to the specific points you quote. The Human Population Dynamics argument is worthless because it relies on a constant exponential growth which is not found in any real population except for cases where resources are unlimited. It's just a demonstration of the principle "Garbage in, garbage out".
As for C14 dating, the relevant points are that
1) Nuclear tests have increased the amount of C14 in the atmosphere (and therefore the amount decaying would be expected to be greater than the production rate)
2) The production rate depends on cosmic ray bombardment and therefore does vary.
3) If the creationist claim were true it should have been shown by calibration studies - but in fact calibration studies using dendrochronology have shown otherwise - for the last 10,000 years we see fluctuations in production rate, not a growth curve. Other studies, while not as accurate as dendrochronology, have extended this for over 40,000 years.
Moving on to the wood in the limestone - well since we only see a bit of wood (or something that looks like wood, in a low-quality black and white photo) what is there to explain ? Someone hammered a bit of wood into a crack in the stone, perhaps ?