Again, I will point out that the people who actually research and learn about this stuff are not coming around to a view that contradicts decades (centuries, even) of learning and discovery. It is not surprising that the only people who are claiming that there is any support for a young cosmos are the same people who always did so regardless of what is found, and the same people whose own charters require them to reject actual science for what their ancient texts might say.
There is a reason that these claims are not put to the test through the process of peer review. There is a reason most of these claims are made by people who are not experts in the sciences in question. Or why the handful of people who are experts also avoid peer review when they go off course. Their claims are so wrong that the relevant sciences largely ignore them anymore, which they take advantage of by pretending it's evidence that they're on the right track. It's conspiracy-theory quackery at it's most deranged.