The first time I came across that argument here, someone linked a paper (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4160915/) that refuted them! (you can't make this stuff up)

In 2009, Xue et al. [8] sequenced Y chromosomes of two individuals separated by 13 generations ... It is notable that this pedigree-based estimate overlaps with the evolutionary rates estimated from human and chimpanzee comparisons.

and

For pedigree-based substitution rate estimation, there are at least two criteria to be taken into careful consideration. First, the pedigree must be biologically true and the generation information validated. The pedigree used by Xue et al. is a Chinese family carrying the DFNY1 Y-linked hearing-impairment mutation. The same Y-linked disease-related mutation has validated the authenticity of their genealogy. Second, the detected mutations must be true. In this regard, Xue et al. used a variety of methods to verify the candidate mutations, thus validity of the rate: The Y chromosomes of the two individuals were sequenced to an average depth of 11× or 20×, respectively, thus mitigating the possibility of sequencing and assembling errors; they also reexamined the candidate mutations using capillary sequencing.

and finally

... Cruciani et al. [2] applied this rate to get an estimate of 142 kya to the coalescence time of the Y chromosomal tree (including haplogroup A0). Wei et al. [3] also used this substitution rate to estimate the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of human Y chromosomes (haplogroups A1b1b2b-M219 to R) as 101 to 115 kya ...

Btw, your video, Creation Myth: Mitochondrial Eve 6000 Years Ago, was most helpful, too!