Btw, here's the direct link.
Only looked at the first couple so far. Not very promising. But I did find a typical creationistic abuse of evidence. More on that below.
1. DNA in “ancient” fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
I could not get access to the full text of the cited research article, Recovery of 16S ribosomal RNA gene fragments from ancient halite, but I did read the abstract.
First, the claim by the compiling creationist, Don Batten, that this DNA was "extracted from bacteria" appears to be simply false. The researchers found DNA (ribosomal DNA) fragments in their samples, detecting them by DNA amplification. There is no indication that the presence of bacteria was confirmed, or even tested for, much less that the rDNA fragments were "extracted".
Although I'm not competent to analyze the particular case, I do know that, increasingly since this article was published in Nature in 2002, more and more living bacteria are being found in deep rocks. Just for instance, I stumbled on this article:
In recent years, a large body of evidence showing the occurrence of diverse and active microbial communities in the terrestrial subsurface has accumulated. Considering the time elapsed since Archaean sedimentation, the contribution of subsurface microbial communities postdating the rock formation to the fossil biomarker pool and other biogenic remains in Archaean rocks may be far from negligible. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In order to evaluate the degree of potential contamination of Archean rocks by modern microorganisms, we looked for the presence of living indigenous bacteria in fresh diamond drillcores through 2,724 Myr-old stromatolites (Tumbiana Formation, Fortescue Group, Western Australia) using molecular methods based on the amplification of small subunit ribosomal RNA genes (SSU rDNAs). We analyzed drillcore samples from 4.3 m and 66.2 m depth, showing signs of meteoritic alteration, and also from deeper "fresh" samples showing no apparent evidence for late stage alteration (68 m, 78.8 m, and 99.3 m). We also analyzed control samples from drilling and sawing fluids and a series of laboratory controls to establish a list of potential contaminants introduced during sample manipulation and PCR experiments. We identified in this way the presence of indigenous bacteria belonging to Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, and Alpha-, Beta-, and Gammaproteobacteria in aseptically-sawed inner parts of drillcores down to at least 78.8 m depth. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The presence of modern bacterial communities in subsurface fossil stromatolite layers opens the possibility that a continuous microbial colonization had existed in the past and contributed to the accumulation of biogenic traces over geological timescales. This finding casts shadow on bulk analyses of early life remains and makes claims for morphological, chemical, isotopic, and biomarker traces syngenetic with the rock unreliable in the absence of detailed contextual analyses at microscale.
Note that last sentence. The necessary "contextual analyses at microscale" was apparently (as it should have been at least mentioned even in the abstract) not performed in the investigation reported in Nature.
So, on to the next "evidence".
2. Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old.
Now this is far more interesting, because it claims not just to find some disembodied DNA fragments, but to actually revive an ancient bacteria, presumably from a spore. Stunning! Here's the cited article, actually only a letter, but in the prestigious journal Nature (Incidentally, the creationists at creation.com do NOT provide these links to the cited articles. I had to look them up.)
Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal
Reviving a 250 million year old anything, even a bacteria, would be utterly, awesomely cool. But, sadly, this turned out to be a modern bacteria. See:
The Permian Bacterium that Isn't
The authors of this 2001 letter in Molecular Biology and Evolution found that the 16S rRNA gene sequence (widely used in interspecies comparisons) of this supposedly revived bacteria differed from that of a modern salt-loving bacteria "by only one transition and one transversion out of the 1,555 aligned and unambiguously determined nucleotides."
Equally important, though, is the first sentence of the letter (emphasis added):
There is growing evidence for the presence of viable microorganisms in geological salt formations that are millions of years old. It is still not known, however, whether these bacteria are dormant organisms that are themselves millions of years old or whether the salt crystals merely provide a habitat in which contemporary microorganisms can grow
As noted wrt to the first "evidence," it was only about this time that scientists first began seriously looking at the idea that bacteria might live in rocks and other subsurface environments. The above "or whether" has been dramatically borne out over the last decade of research, with scientists finding that such communities of bacteria do indeed exist.
Now notice that YEC Don Batten's 101 evidences ... was published in June of 2009, long after this question, about whether bacteria, and bacterial DNA, in ancient rock could be from modern bacteria living in them, HAS BEEN ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
This -- apparently purposeful and knowning, or otherwise ignorant and incompetent -- utilization of superceded scientific results is absolutely characteristic of "creation science." One finds it again and again in the literature of this psuedoscience.