Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

so i figured i'd check out fossil dating... and from what i understand... they don't actually test the fossil... they date it according to how far down it's buried and what rocks are near it... Correct, basically.bascially what i gather from this... it's just a long drawn out way of making a guess?I don't know how you came to that conclusion, unless you expect that the fossils materialised into foreign rock layers, it is a very clever solution to determining age.from what i figure... if tectonic plates shift... wouldn't it be possible for fossils to move further down in the earth? or if something collapsed on a person... and they are found 200 years from now... would they be dated at millions of years old?As I understand it, fossils form in sedimentary rock, meaning that "new" stone forms around the preserved remains while converting it into fossilised remains. In this case the sedimentary layers are dated to be as old as their parent igneous rocks, which gives a time frame to the age of the sedimentary rock. Fossils are not found in igneous or metamorphic rock, which is the basis of your hypothetical situation. It wouldn't fit if we found remains trapped beneath metamorphic or igneous rocks, and as I understand it the remains wouldn't fossilise in the first place since the rocks are not the environment of mud and silt which is conducive to the process.how exactly is dating rocks an accurate way of testing the age of fossils?Sedimentary rocks form slowly over time and are the only type of rocks which contain fossils. The sediment contains the isotope ratios from the time of their parent igneous rock's formation (because igneous rocks trap the necessary radioactive isotopes), these igneous rocks within a time frame will break down into sediment which forms the layers of sedimentary rock which traps fossils. Therefore we have a reasonable way to infer the fossil's age (age of sedimentary rock minus the time it takes igneous rock to decay into sedimentary rock).isn't it possible that they could be wrong?There are always ways to make mistakes, likewise these ways are documented in scientific journals so as to prevent these mistakes from happening.TrueThat said earlier that they found "soft tissue" in dinosaur bones... and maybe they should look closer at the how they date the age of dinos... instead of trying to figure out how "soft tissue" can survive as long as it has... No, they never found soft tissue as you're thinking, they had to demineralise the tissues first. Secondly the fossils were dated as 68 million years old for the T. rex specimen. Creationist literature hijacked this research and misrepresented the process so that it appeared to suggest that unfossilised tissues were found in these fossils.Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of ProteinSoft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the presentafter further investigating the dating system... i really think they should take a closer look at the dating of fossils...if it turns out their dating system is off... Never trust creationist literature. You need to read the source.The source says that the fossils were 68 million years old, and that the tissues required demineralisation.1) how would it effect the theory of evolution?Not much since the theory doesn't hinge on this. It is established that we are genetically related and descended from simpler animals. The fossil record mostly agrees with our genetic data. Quibbling over a T. rex isn't very big.2) would you still have faith in science if it turns out that the fossils were millions of years younger?Science doesn't operate on faith. You should know this. The conclusions are the best extrapolation of the facts.3) if the fossils were millions of years younger, would you still think evolution is correct?As said, it really isn't very important to the rest of the data. What would matter is if we found fossilised rodents dated as billions of years old.There is some science for you. I believed you were misinformed by the evolutionist.I suggest you research your claims.