My question is, how valid are these evidences?
Absolutely not valid. The only human footprints at the Paluxy river valley are the bootprints of Baugh and his guys looking for "evidence" to bilk the gullible. Even Answers in Genesis won't corraborate these "Paluxy footprints", and they'll go for just about
anything.
For example, one of the "footprints" that Baugh found is a roughly-oblonged-shaped depression over 20 inches from "toe" to "heel" - and actually has neither of the concave depressions you would expect from the ball and heel of a normal foot. You'd have to be 7 feet tall to have a size-20 foot; somebody that tall who had nether heel nor arch simply couldn't stand.
Baugh has a legitimate dinosaur footprint alongside a depression that
he himself admits chipping out to make it look more like a footprint. Is that the kind of evidence you believe could overturn the most successful theory in biology, the one that's letting thousands of scientists nationwide get on with real work?