Did Dinosaurs Coexist with Humans? An Interview with Darek Isaacs
- Wednesday, July 07, 2010
You do say in the book that the theory of evolution crumbles if these species co-existed. Can you break that down for us?
Absolutely. To make a claim like that, I wanted to use an evolutionist to prove my point. A guy named Louis Jacobs wrote The Quest for the African Dinosaur. Last I checked, he was a stringent evolutionist. He actually gave me the quote for the idea when he talks about the co-occurrence of man and dinosaur. He says if that were to be proven true, the theory of evolution would be demolished.
And the reason why is the way they date their dinosaurs. Dinosaur fossils are found embedded in rock. And they have methods that they think correctly date the rock [layer]. So if there is a dinosaur fossil embedded in this rock, they date that rock layer and they come up with an [estimate] like 70 million years, and therefore the bone that is encapsulated in that rock must also be 70 million years [old]. So they build their entire ladder - if you will - of evolutionary descent or ascent on these layers of rock. So if something is buried very, very low (and I'm really simplifying this now) on this geologic column, and you go up ten feet, then it must be millions of years older than the thing ten feet above it.
Well, if we're able to show that what was buried here [points to a spot even lower on the imaginary column than the item buried very low] matches and has lived with things that are buried at the very top, that means they have misread every ounce of data that they have. And that is why it just fails, everything now breaks, because our core assumption is now shown to be flawed.
You cite evidence (your word) of things like cave paintings, soft-tissue remnants, dragon lore around the world, etc. against that argument about layers of sediment and rock. Can you touch a little bit on the battle between these groups who would look at the same facts and arrive at different conclusions?
It's really a worldview as a starting point. From my perspective, I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I'm a Bible man, cover to cover. And I see the Bible as a "Governor of Science." And what I mean by that is that all scientific data (and really, "Science" is just our accumulation of knowledge), all of our knowledge and all of our conclusions from it, have to be weighed against the Bible and the authority of the Bible. So if something contradicts what the Bible says then we have to go, "Our conclusions on the data are wrong."
However, Science - secular science - I have quotes in my book where they actually say anything that points to God, anything that points to an Intelligent Designer? We have to remove that data completely. It's shocking. I've written a chapter called "The Theory of Imagination" where I break down how when things point to an Intelligent Designer, they don't think that's naturalistic, so it can't be within the realms of science, so they have to remove all of that data, and all of those conclusions. So when they see data that points to an idea that there is a Creator, they can't use it, or they don't want to. When we see data or conclusions from data that contradict the authority of Scripture, we know that our conclusions on that data are incorrect, because the Bible is our spine, it's what we stand on.
Where did dragons or dinosaurs go, and how have they faded into myth?
That is one of the things that was most interesting about this project. After I really threw all this evidence - from archaeological evidence, biological evidence (as you mentioned earlier, the soft-tissue findings), all the dragon lore, and also the historical records of Pliny the Elder, Herodotus, Flavius Josephus who speak of dragons - well then how in the world did they go to myth if they really walked with man?
It's very unfortunate, but it was a theological mistake! Throughout the Dark Ages, the institution of the Church - really the institution of the Roman Catholic Church - did all they could to keep the Bible out of native languages. They kept it in Latin. So for a thousand years you had a very ignorant - not by their own fault - mass of people that just didn't know what the Bible said. So they created systematic theologies to try to explain things to people, but one of the things they failed in - and this is the critical point - is that they didn't understand the aspect of sin on the world. According to the Bible, sin brought death. From our perspective now, we see the decay of all things from post-Fall, when Adam sinned.
Recently on Spiritual Life
Have something to say about this article? Leave your comment via Facebook below!
Listen to Your Favorite Pastors
Add Crosswalk.com content to your siteBrowse available content