Evidence 2 states "Live bacteria found in salt deposits supposedly 250 million years means that the salt is NOT that old". What  real scientific  evidence exists for live or dead bacteria or bacterial spores existing that long ago in the salt?

Live bacteria in salt only indicates that there is living bacteria in Salt. It is not by any means an indicator of the age of the salt mineral. There are live people in buildings that are hundreds of years old, that doesn't mean the building isn't hundreds of years old. I found a live flower on a hillside that is likely several millions of years old, a living flower on it does not mean the hill is only one season old. Formation of salt minerals and deposition is NOT dated by what living thing is in it. Living, dead, or fossilized organisms within a rock or mineral ONLY indicate that the rock or mineral is at least as old as the organism, or older. Since obviously it had to exist before the organism came to inhabit it. A 250 million year old salt deposit is that old because it is actually about that age as determined by radiometric dating, compositional analysis, relative dating, structural dating, and sometimes a few other methods as well just to further drive the point home, bacteria inhabiting it later on have no baring on such things. This argument holds no water.

I like all previous answers, but let me give you a wider view: no evidence will satisfy these folks, because your question (as they interpret it) is in principle unanswerable.  They divide science into two categories (unlike the rest of us): "observational" science and "historical" science.  Observational science is the science that deals with current-day phenomena, while historical science deals with past events.  So?  Well, the difference is fundamental to them: historical science (by definition) operates on testimony, written records, extrapolations, etc., not by direct observation like the 'good' science.  This means that (for YECists) historical-scientific claims are inherently unreliable and speculative.  (Unlike, say... some book or other.) So: "what recent evidence exists for bacteria or bacterial spores surviving that long?"  If by 'recent', we mean "observational" science, there can't be, because we haven't seen (directly!) bacteria living that long, in anything.  Since we "know" (observationally) that bacteria don't live 250 million years (all the bacteria we actually observe has had much shorter lifecycles), observational science tells us that the salt is also 'young', and we should disregard any historical science that tells us otherwise. Now, if you don't divide science this way (yay for you) then there's a totally different answer available to you: the complex and interwoven set of evidence we have for salt & mineral formation, geology, the biology of extremophiles, etc., would (I'm guessing, not a scientists in these areas!) clearly and reasonably establish both the truth of salt's age, and an explanation for the presence of bacteria.  BUT: even if bacteria "shouldn't" be able to live in salt, or shouldn't be found in 'sealed' veins of salt, that is an anomaly that science will not run from: it will confront it, and use it (*appropriately*) to question its own presuppositions until it finds an empirically-backed way to reconcile this fact with other well-established observations.  Science will not take every setback, problem or outstanding issue as a reason to jump straight to the literal truth of the Bible.  These people are not interested in investigating salt; they are just looking to collect anything they can use to discredit science, using a superficial and generally ill-applied knowledge of science and logical fallacies to do it.

Oh please.    Bacteria cannot live in salt, it's much too dry (and salty). If you find bacteria in salt, you should try cleaning your collection tools.  Covering them with salt for a few days is a good way.

There is a point-by-point refutation of the famed 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe here at http://Rationalwiki.org.  It is one of the most damning articles to ever be written against Young Earth Creationism.  Creationists like Don Batten like to throw out as many "questions" as possible in order to create doubt and get people to maybe think, "well gee, they have 101 here, some of them have to be true. Maybe evolutionists are wrong after all".  The fact that you can find, in one place, their most comprehensive list completely destroyed leaves no doubt that they are liars. The specific question being asked is addressed in number 2. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe#cite_ref-10 An actual science article that did a study on the bacteria: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6834/full/411155a0.html