Evolution's hall of shame.

Then we have the issue of lava forming under water. The outer part of lava would cool much quicker and take on a magnetic field long before the inner part is cool enough to do so. So will the out side magnetized shell effect the final polarization of the slower cooling inner part? You bet. And will the inner core effect the final result of the polarization of the whole lave rock? The core polarization determines the final polarization. So if the core is opposite of the outer shell, the shell will have to change over time to be like the core's poles. So that the lava rock will becomes one in it polarization.

Here we have a question ask by a 18 year old to a scientist:

name       Owen
status     student
age        18

Question - Can you please explain whether or not the magnetic field of the earth is decaying? If so, at what rate? Can we determine the age of the earth from this rate?

 Ah, the creationist magnetic dating argument. Yes, measurements taken over the past hundred or so years indicate that the magnitude of the earth's magnetic dipole moment is decreasing. Geologic evidence shows that the earth's magnetic field has switched directions many times, so it's possible that we're approaching another zero point. That doesn't tell us anything at all about the age of the earth.

Richard E. Barrans Jr., Ph.D.
>Assistant Director
>PG Research Foundation, Darien, Illinois

Reference: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env116.htm

Notice what is automatically assumed. A creationist question. Is this not also a scientific one? But because this question does not support the evolutionist view, or the old earth view. It's automatically has to be a creationist asking the question. What this shows the 18 year old, is that God, and creation, are not an accepted view, even though creation was never bought up. But what I think is also funny about the scientist's answer, is that he answers the question about the real reason the polar flips came out. It's being used to debunk what they cannot explain. Which is why the current rate of decay, does not support an old aging earth. So here again, science has to be right, even if they have to lie about it.

Can reheating a already magnetized object change it poles, or even demagnetize the object?

The answer is both yes and no.  If you apply enough heat to raise the
magnet above its Curie Temperature (you can look up the Curie Temperature
for a substance in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, among other
places), then it will lose all of its spontaneous magnetization.  However,
when you lower the temperature again the magnetization will return.  Short
of changing the composition of the magnet, I know of no way to permanently
destroy the magnetization of a permanent magnet.

I should add a qualification to this.  While the magnet will always have a
magetization when it is cooler than its Curie Temperature, different parts
of the magnet will have magnetization in different directions.  You can
"scramble" the magnetization of a permanent magnet by heating it and
applying a rapidly varying magnetic field.  Or by hitting it with a hammer. 
When magnets weaken over time, this is what is happening.

Reference: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may99/926617797.Ph.r.html

So now we have were magnetic objects that are reheated, from numerous lava flows, affecting their already established magnetic poles. Can you see all the holes that can be shot into this theory? But just like Pelt Down Man, and the pictures of Heaskels human babies, and the Stanley Miller experiment, this will be taught to our kids as fact. Even though they know it's a lie. Has theories given science a ticket to tell lies? How? A theory really does not have to be proven, only to a degree. And if they fake that degree, who's gonna know until it's been researched? Has science learned from past mistakes about lies? Not if they keep repeating them. For this only shows they are getting better at it. And it shows they have conscience about teaching ;ies to our kids as well.