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).
Also, a number of the evidences, rather than giving any estimate of age, challenge the assumption of slow-and-gradual uniformitarianism, upon which all deep-time dating methods depend.
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.
Additionally, I followed the link for the first claim, that the presence of DNA in 'ancient samples' refuted the samples' supposed age.
There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested.
For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old.
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.