We can only find tissue that has been protected by bone and rock for tens of thousands of years.
Yep. And yet - they don't. You are probably reading too much creationist pap to be aware of that.
The science is moving on from that received wisdom
e.g.
https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
If all of the fossils from the Global Flood were laid down over a one year period, relatively recently and buried in water deposited sedimentary layers which run for thousands of miles around the entire globe, which we have, then we should be able to easily find soft tissue in Dinosaur bones. And we can!
Not easily, but we are finding it, and in fossils that are millions of years old. This isn't proof that the fossils are far more recent (which would require overturning the wealth of evidence in support of the ageing techniques) but is evidence that requires a change in our understanding of how soft tissue survives for so long needs an overhaul. Which it is gradually getting.
And that soft tissue would be evidence that our current understanding of geology and time are way off.
Only if you're unscientific about things. What science does is reexamine the assumptions - and in this case we can reexamine the wealth of evidence behind the dating of the fossils to hundreds of millions of years... or we can reexamine the assumption that, say, soft tissue only survives for tens of thousands of years at most.
Both are being done, but the latter is where the error in assumption seems to be (see link above for possible explanations etc).
Soft tissue in Dinosaur bones should point us towards the revision of the dating of the geologic column. Err, or, geologic flood column.
Not necessarily, as it seems that our undertanding around the survival time of soft tissue is lacking. That is now improving.
In other words, it becomes clear that a Dinosaur fossil currently dated at 198 million years old, found with soft tissue, cannot be 198 million years old, but must be far more recent.
No, what it means (or what current scientific understanding is suggesting) is that a dinosaur fossil currently dated at 198 million years old, found with soft tissue, is 198 million years old, with soft tissue that has survived 198 million years, due to possible processes that are being gradually researched and understood.
If a Global Flood occurred in which Dinosaurs of all kinds were fossilized over a year, all Dinosaur Bones could at least potentially have soft tissue. Because they would have all been buried relatively recently at relatively the same time.
If Martians came down and zapped all the dinosaurs within a year and then sprinkled the world with something that looked like a sedimentary layer then you'd get much the same thing as you're suggesting. But where's the science for either?
We should see Dinosaur Bones all over the earth buried by water with soft tissue in them, because they were all buried at the same time only a few thousand years ago, not spread out over millions of years.
And so far, that is the case.
No, it's not. We certainly have layers of fossils matching, as far as we can tell, local and global catastrophes (e.g. asteroid impact), and many of those might well have had soft tissue (had we checked for it at the time, before destroying the chance to look due to the methods used to protect the bones, such as glue etc), but this just speaks, more rationally, to our lack of understanding of how such soft tissue can survive for so long.
Once one dismisses the assumption that soft tissue can not possibly last beyond ten thousand years or so, one is left with the straighforward conclusions that (1) the current ageing of the fossils is supported by a wealth of evidence; (2) our understanding of how soft-tissue can survive so long needs updating.
Scientists love to see old outdated theories proven wrong. It is what they live for! And now it is just a matter of time and a little more research.
Yep, and it's being done, and is suggesting that soft-tissue really can last far longer than just a few tens of thousands of years. Science at work!
