You are vastly mistaken.
I'm working on a big project and don't have time to address each of your errors in detail, but just for fun let's look at a few items from your Big List of things that (you claim) "set upper limits much younger than" a few billion years for the solar system:
Earth’s magnetic field is decreasing at an alarming rate.
Wow, that old chestnut again. It has been debunked countless times over the past few decades, but creationists just keep trotting it out again. Yes, the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing. No, it is not decreasing at an "alarming" rate. No, that doesn't "prove" that the Earth must be younger than a few billion years old. The Earth's magnetic field doesn't just keep fading forever, it in fact "rises and falls" in a periodic fashion, and we're currently in one of its waning periods. There is irrefutable geologic evidence for this. Someday perhaps the creationists will finally crack open a textbook and learn a few basic things before they go tearing off on another "magnetic field" rant.
The Grand Canyon could have been carved in just the last few thousand years.
No it couldn't, but no need to quibble -- even if it could have, how exactly is that supposed to "prove" that the Earth can't be very old? Are you somehow under the impression that the Earth itself can't be older than the Grand Canyon? (The same goes for another favorite creationist "proof" about the age of Niagara Falls -- yes, Niagara Falls is indeed of rather recent vintage; but this in no way proves that the Earth itself must not be old.)
The moon and meteorites contain short-lived radionuclides.
...because they have no atmosphere and are exposed to cosmic rays, which form *new* short-lived radionuclides when they hit. This is also where most of the "new" Carbon-14 in the Earth's atmosphere comes from. Again, I invite creationists to try reading a textbook or two before they attempt another "scientific" analysis of something.
Io and Europa are losing a ton of their mass every second.
Presuming this is even true (and creationists have a bad habit of stating "facts" that simply are not the case), this means that Europa, the smaller of the two moons, would have lost a whopping one quarter of one percent (0.0025) of its mass during the last four billion years. I'm sorry, how was this supposed to "lead one to estimate much lower ages"? Why exactly would this "have to be str-r-r-r-r-etched by many orders of magnitude" in order "to fit the 4.6 billion year timeline"? Actually, instead of "leading one to estimate much lower ages", it instead leads me to conclude that creationists don't know how to use calculators.
Io has far more volcanic activity than can be explained by tidal heating.
...which is no problem because "tidal heating" is only *one* of several mechanisms driving volcanic activity. I refer you to that "textbook" thing again...
Europa might have active geyser activity even today.
That's nice. Here's a cookie. Again, there are many mechanisms which contribute to geyser activity even on billion+ year old moons.
Neptune is the farthest large planet but has the strongest winds, and shows evidence of seasonal activity.
Okay, I'll bite -- how do either of these observations (presuming they're true) suggest that Neptune must be "younger" than currently believed? In other words, how would being "younger" help better explain seasonal activity or stronger winds on Neptune than on the other gas giants? Oh, right, it doesn't... Ditto for many other items on your list.
Titan’s surface should be blanketed with half a mile of hydrocarbons by now, but large patches of bedrock ice are found.
Ever hear of a process called "erosion"? It's in those "textbook" thingies... Titan has an atmosphere denser than Earth's, and methane falls as liquid rain. Both would remove hydrocarbon solids from elevated areas and wash them down into lower-lying areas (and into the postulated methane oceans, if they exist), leaving large patches of exposed rock and water ice (which at Titan's temperatures would be permanent as rock itself). "Problem" solved using High School level knowledge. May the creationists someday rise to that level in their analysis.
And so on...
Coppedge takes the stance of a hyper-skeptic. This is commonly found in fringe psuedoscience circles of all stripes. Nothing about mainstream science is trustworthy, because there's a Vast Atheistic Scientific Conspiracy to cover up the truth about the grays, Venus, Atlantis, creationism.
I'm envious of his subscription to Science. But IMO he uses his rational abilities for evil, not for good: He's not interested in an accurate understanding of reality at all. He's just interested in defending the Faith. What a waste of an apparently fine mind!