I appreciate that you watched at least that much. Regarding the "old" sources, I am quite sure these are still modern and valid in the field of astronomy. Granted, science does change, but that is driven by empirical observations (e.g., space probes - data from which have in many cases defied evolutionary expectations). As we cannot observe the formation of the solar system, only theoretical models are possible. As for this 2020 paper, the idea seems rather far-fetched. It's also a rather implicit admission that planetary formation cannot proceed according to the known laws of physics.
Well, let’s look at some of them lines of evidence. I’m not going to do all of them, for the sake of brevity. But I can tell you there are more proofs than just the ones I’ll list.
The sun: The sun rotates about 200 times too slowly for the nebular model to be true. It has more than 99% of the mass of the solar system yet only about 0.3% of the total angular momentum of the solar system. If the solar system condensed from a swirling ball of dust and gas, this violates the law of conservation of angular momentum. Of course, this is no problem for creationists. (This is not mentioned in that particular video, but he has covered it in other videos).
Mercury: Mercury cannot be as dense as it has been observed to be according to the secular model. Due to the inconsistencies between the theoretical model and the empirical observations, it is now theorized by secular scientists that Mercury experienced a catastrophic collision that stripped away all the lesser-density materials. There’s no evidence for this--so a recusing device is posited to reconcile Mercury with the evolutionary model. Moreover, Mercury has a magnetic field, which it should not have if it were billions of years old. The magnetic field decays too fast. Earth’s does too, so evolutionists have posited a dynamo effect that causes it. This is what I called a rescuing device, because if we extrapolate from actual measurements of the earth’s magnetic field, the earth would be liquefied a mere 20k years ago. But I digress. While a dynamo effect was invented to explain the earth’s magnetic field, it doesn’t work for Mercury. A dynamo effect requires a molten core. However, Mercury cannot have a molten core if it were billions of years old, as it would have frozen already.
Earth: According to the nebular model, the earth is too close to the sun for water to have condensed. For this reason, secular scientists theorize that the earth acquired it water via comet strikes. Besides the lack of evidence of this hypothesis, it’s been observed that most comets have the wrong ratio of deuterium to water for this to be plausible. So for the earth, whole surface is mostly covered in water, the secular model fails to explain how there is so much water here.
Earth’s moon: The moon is receding from the earth too quickly; extrapolated backwards and it is in contact with the earth within the timeframe of earth’s supposed age.
Gas giants: Jupiter and Saturn cannot have formed in their respective locations according to the secular models. Also, Saturn's rings are far too clean to be billions of years old.
Io: Io's extensive volcanic activity contradicts the old solar system view, as any such activity would have ceased a long time ago as the moon cooled off.
Ganymede: same as Mercury, having a magnetic field, for which a dynamo effect cannot be used an explanation, because it shouldn’t have a liquid core if it were billions of years old.
Titan: secular scientists were quite surprised not to find massive seas of liquid ethane, which it should have as the methane in its atmosphere is broken down. Moreover, the methane is irreversibly lost and, with no way to replenish it, it looks to conform to a biblical age rather than a secular one.
Enceladus: With erupting geysers and observed rates of the emission of heat far above evolutionary expectations, it also defies an age of billions of years, by which time it too would have been old, cold, and dead.
Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki lists numerous dating methods, though many of them I call secondary methods, because they require calibration with other methods. Those that don't I call primary ones, and I'll mainly focus on those.
Dendrochronology is chronology by counting tree rings. One has to look at several trees, and look for correlations in how their ring thicknesses vary, but by doing so, it's been possible to go back as far as 10,500 years.
It's been used to calibrate radiocarbon dating, something made secondary by variations in atmospheric C-14.
Ice layering goes back 145,000 years.
Milankovitch astronomical cycles leave their imprint in the geological record, and they have been used to improve the dating of the last 20+ million years. Such cycles have to be checked against other methods, so this method is not quite primary in practice.
Radiometric dating, with uranium, thorium, potassium, etc. goes back some 4.6 billion years, in the oldest datable material in the Solar System: meteorites. It uses radioactive decay, something which happens by three sets of ways, with a different mechanism for each:
- Disintegration by quantum tunneling: alpha decay (He4), spontaneous fission
- Weak interaction: beta decay (e+, e-), electron capture
- Electromagnetic: gamma decay (photon emission)
The first two produce nuclides different from the original ones, and some of their half-lives are long enough for radiometric dating. Variation in fundamental constants would produce relative variations in decay rates, and no such variations have been observed.
Stratigraphic correlation and sequencing is a secondary method for absolute ages, but a primary method for relative ages. It uses magnetic reversals, fossils, and other such evidence, and with fossils, geologists found the right order decades before radiometric dating became practical. Fossils are used as markers of rocks, and "stage of evolution" is *not* used.
Stellar structure and evolution calculations can be applied to the Sun, with helioseismology providing clues on the Sun's interior. One finds from these calculations an age of 4.6 billion years, very close to the ages of meteorites found with radiometric dating.
Looking outside the Solar System, one finds that the oldest stars in our Galaxy are about 13 billion years old, also from stellar-evolution calculations, and that the Universe as a whole is about 13.7 billion years old, from how fast distant galaxies are moving away from us.
Re the rationalwiki article, so let's look at one the arguments here: ice layering. According to your link, it is considered a reliable method, as only one layer will form each year. Yet, consider the case of an American warplane that crashed in Greenland in 1942. In 1990, it was found 80m deep. In 48 years, there were many hundreds of ice rings that had formed. These are not "annual rings."
Radioactive dating is commonly propounded as evidence for a young earth. Yet carbon-14 is found in coal, oil, diamonds - which argues against an old age. Contamination is not a reliable explanation, as that has been addressed and ruled out. And other methods, like potassium-argon dating, have been used to produce ages of hundreds of thousands and even millions of years for volcanic eruptions whose timing is known, like 2.8 million years for Mount St Helens in 1986.
There's also quite a problem when you look at the issue of geology, and assume uniformitarian processes. Catastrophic processes are a better explanation, and the global flood explains the rapid deposition of layers. It also explains fossilization, as this occurs by rapid burial, such as what occurred during the flood.
Stellar rotation - 
