The only production mechanism for significant quantities of heavy elements (basically anything above He) is fusion within stars - though there are some isotopes that can be formed by other processes, 14C and 36Cl through the action of cosmic rays for example or various anthropogenic sources. Stellar fusion can generate elements upto iron, but beyond that the reaction is no longer energetically favourable. Within the core of a massive star, however, with the loss of suitable fuel for fusion the collapse will be so rapid and generate such heat that energetically unfavourable fusion will occur and produce considerable quantities of heavier elements. The final stage of the collapse will be the point where the core density gets so high that protons transmute into neutrons producing a blast of neutrinos and a shockwave that ejects most of the core and outer layers of the star. This is what is called a supernova.
Clearly the rate of supernovae in the galaxy is currently far too low to account for the amount of heavy elements we observe here. However, observations of galaxies much younger than our own shows conclusively that they're dominated by super-massive stars that will very quickly collapse and go supernova. There is no reason to believe that this galaxy was any different when formed than other galaxies. This gives a consistant picture of the evolution of the galaxy - supermassive stars which rapidly go supernova seeding the galaxy with heavy elements, which in turn get incorporated into later stars (note: the presence of trace amounts of heavy elements affects the fusion inside stars, and as such would encourage the formation of smaller stars rather than the early generations of supermassives).
So to address your points 1 to 4 - heavy elements were formed in the nuclear furnaces of supermassive stars in the early stages of the galaxy and dispersed by supernova explosions (with small quantities from more recent supernovae). They weren't captured by our solar system - they were part of the cloud of hydrogen and dust from which our solar system formed.
There is no scientific evidence supporting a young earth.
Since these were contextual offside comments not directly pertinent to the main topic, which is your speculations about the nature of time, details weren't appropriate and I don't see anything dogmatic about either of our statements. If you wish to discuss the evidence for a young earth simply open a thread.
But I think you're losing sight of your original topic. You began with speculations about a "2 clock system", and now you're off discussing radiometric dating and the origin of the heavy elements. Could you try to tie in for us how this all relates to your original post?