I wrote a fairly long reply addressing each one of those sources, the kind of thing I didn't want to turn this comment section into, but I deleted it once I realized that there was no pm or email to send to.
Just to summarize my thoughts on it, and probably the thoughts of most people who you would show those to who would reject it, none of those links are actual scientific evidence for reasons that many thousands of books, blog posts, podcasts, videos, etc discussing the problems with young earth creationism have already addressed. We're not closed minded, we just have substantially different criteria for determining what is valid evidence and what is not than do young earth creationists, and we believe we have very good reasons for having those different criteria. I'm not looking for a debate and won't participate in one here, just giving you some insight on the probable reasons why other people you have shown this to have discounted it. If you would like to get a better idea of why we don't consider your sources to be valid evidence I would suggest that you take some time to read a few well-reviewed books on the topic from the perspective of scientists who don't believe in young earth creationism.
