Many of these indicators for younger ages were discovered when creationist scientists started researching things that were supposed to ‘prove’ long ages.

paleomagnetism dating site-77

However, the 4th reference of that article, the one you claim proves that DNA cannot last for millions of years never makes this claim.

It only speaks of ways in which DNA is damaged in living cells - (which fossils are clearly not).

However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now.

And there are now good reasons for thinking that it might have been quite intense in the past, in which case the craters do not indicate an old age at all (see below).

In fact, it mentions an experiment in which DNA from a sample millions of years old was extracted successfully.

The only comment that remotely resembles your first complaint is a response to a fact-free rant by a Paul C., from the USA, where Paul C.When the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it.Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a young age of the earth.Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism.If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly.The author's doctorate in science is often used to defend the veracity of the "101 evidences." However, a degree in plant science earned through the study of the mung bean would hardly give him the authority or expertise required to fully comprehend the evidence used in the Geological, Radiometrical, Astronomical, and Historical subsections which make up 90 of the 101 evidences.