As a natural skeptic, I've long had doubts about this, particularly because of the dubiousness of radiocarbon dating (which admittedly I know very little about). It seems to me that, like the video says, the rocks around the area could be one age and the fossil another. Furthermore, I'm skeptical of the ability of this dating to tell us anything about the age of something. They're supposedly measuring radioactive decay, well ok, first of all, that assumes that all materials start with a given level of radioactivity from their creation, which may or may not be true. In fact, I don't even know what "creation" would mean in this instance. Does a rock that gets molten into lava and then cools down and turns into rock again, regain this full radioactivity? - Anyway, given all that, we're measuring how much this radioactivity decays over a given period of time that we can observe, say 100 years, and based on that, stipulating on how much it's decayed over thousands or millions of years. How do we know that the rate was constant over all that time? Perhaps conditions made the rate change. Also, how do we know that they don't decay faster when the radioactive load is higher, in the beginning, and slow down over time? Kind of like a hot cup of coffee lowers it's temperature much faster when it's just made, but as it slowly cools down, the rate of loss of heat diminishes, until at the end, in the very last few degrees above room temperature, it can take a long time to lose that amount of heat. In this way it could be that what we think is 4.5 billion years worth of decay is actually just 6,000, and the young Earth creationists could be right. I don't know. But I have a lot of doubts. I do assume the Earth is as old as mainstream science believes, in my everyday life, because I don't know enough about this type of science to make a determination that I know better than the "experts". That said, asking questions is always a good idea.
Also, oftentimes when they find entire fossilized remains, such as of the imprint of a shell of a sea creature on a rock... I often look at it and it seems as if the supposed shell was simply carved onto the rock for display. I've seen plenty of cases where the supposed imprint, rather than laying on the surface of the rock, has made an indentation on the rock, which of course would be much easier to carve. I don't know much about the physics and chemistry, and if this would make sense or not, but it gives me doubts.
Also, plenty of times, when looking at supposed fossilized remains, I wonder if that is really a fossil from an animal (or plant) that was once alive, or if it's simply a rock that just happens to look weird and they thought it was a fossil. In this case it wouldn't be forgery, just wishful thinking that makes people see special things in everyday things. Kind of like you can stare at clouds and discover all sorts of amazing shapes, and sometimes you can almost swear that a particular shape was made especially for you at that particular time.
One thing to mention, however, is that the theory of evolution by natural selection doesn't need any fossils to be found in order to be correct. All it requires is random alterations to the DNA sequence which have various effects, sometimes good and sometimes bad, on the makeup of the living organism, with a possibility that those alterations or mutations can carry over the generations without being fixed. Then, natural selection will do the rest. The theory doesn't need Earth to be old. It doesn't even need there to be no God who could have created all the species originally. The theory of evolution doesn't disprove God anymore than the theory of gravity does. Nothing can disprove God, because God can't be perceived with our senses or detected with technology used to enhance our senses. Just like we can't disprove that there's a leprechaun with a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. We can, however, look at the Holy Books, which are supposedly the word of God, and find apparent inconsistencies there. That still would not disprove His existence. Plenty of people who don't believe in the theory of evolution and do believe in God, like the maker of this video, seem to claim that evolution is a theory made up to disprove God. It isn't.
I do believe the Earth is round rather than flat. I mention that because it seems that the creator of this video is a Flat Earth theory proposer. I think in all likelihood, the Flat Earth spark in this early 21st century has been manufactured by the ruling classes, much like the Alien/UFO mania of the mid to late 20th century, to disrupt, misdirect and manage the opposition, and to make people disregard actual conspiracies, which they are a part of and want to see hidden or ignored. And I say that being that I myself witnessed two phenomena that I could only describe as UFOs on two separate occasions just last year or the year prior. Nevertheless, I have to admit that I find both of these conspiracy theories to be interesting, and I do spend time researching them, which is probably what the ruling classes want. If I spend time doing that, that diverts my attention from something else.
