I went to YouTube to look at this so that I could break it up and pause it where I wanted to. I watched half of it and had found so many inaccuracies that I hope you'll forgive me if I don't watch the rest.

There seems to be an underlying assumption in this video that evolutionists and geologists believe in uniformitarianism -- that everything had to have happened gradually over great periods of time. All geologists understand that this quite clearly is not true. Layers of sediment can form quickly just as they can form slowly, and the formation of different kinds of sediments is well studied. The fact that the host of this video claims that "It has always been believed that strata in rocks take millions of years to form" reflects the general level of scientific ignorance being propagated here.

A layer of sediment that forms horizontally rather than vertically is called a transgression.The host of this video seems to be hinting that geologists can't spot a transgression and routinely think sedimentary rocks are older than they really are. This attitude runs throughout the video actually -- implying that scientists don't know what they are doing. He cites the Grand Canyon as an example, but actually the transgressions there are well studied.

Also, not all sediments form this way. Limestone doesn't. And there are some sediments, such as aeolian deposits, which are not formed by water at all. The Grand Canyon has some of these.

He cites the canyon formed by the Toutle River at Mount St. Helens as an example of catastrophic erosion and says that the Grand Canyon could have formed just like this. There are some basic problems here though.The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into harder material which includes consolidated sediment (meaning it has been turned into rock) and volcanic rock. The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees and the walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places. From these facts alone, you can see that the comparison is not an equal one. There are other factors which have been discussed more thoroughly in the Grand Canyon thread.

Oh, one last thing about this that the video doesn't mention. Scientists make routine use of index fossils, chiefly foraminifera, to help date strata. This can show where a transgression occurs. It can also indicate whether a thick layer of sediment was formed all at once or over a great deal of time. This refers back to the question about the sorting of the fossil record that I posed in the "Hypocrisy/apathy" thread -- wherever we look in the geological column, we see this sorting. There are other methods scientists can use (for example cosmogenic and uranium dating which can reveal how long a surface has been exposed) and probably others of which I am unaware because I am not an expert, but a basic knowledge is all one needs to digest what this video is presenting.

The only thing worth noting about the discussion of polystrate fossils here is that the video seems to seek to show that the strata accumulated around the tree could not have formed over millions of years. Well wood can be preserved under water for thousands of years -- I've held some in my hand. And as noted above, sediments can be deposited rapidly. This simply links up to what I said at first, that no geologist believes that all geological layers had to have taken millions of years to form. What it does not prove is that all geological layers are young.

I have no complaints about the science I saw being presented in this video. The problems lie with what it leaves out, and it leaves out a great deal.