Ah, the good old “101 evidences for a young earth and universe” article. Better titled “101 ways to completely disregard the basic rules and principles of how to measure things.”
A whole string of these arguments merely point out that the earth contains young things, or that some geological processes can happen rapidly given the right conditions. Neither of these are sufficient to demonstrate that the earth is young. The earth is older than the oldest thing it contains, not the same age as some conveniently cherry-picked data point or other. Additionally, in order to establish a young earth, you need to show that all geological processes could have happened quickly without vaporising the earth in the process. Furthermore, when different data sets line up with each other, it is necessary to demonstrate that they could have happened in lock-step with each other.
This list falls far, far short of achieving this.
Edit: I also note that the article says this:
No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Although age indicators are called ‘clocks’ they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. Always the starting time of the ‘clock’ has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.
There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested.
This is a flat-out lie. There are several natural clocks whose assumptions are independent of each other. Radiometric dating, tree rings, lake varves, ice cores, continental drift, just to name but a few.