Once again, an evolutionist accepts hype over direct observation. Again and again we creationists are accused of "denying evidence". I have already stated my dissatisfaction lies with the misinterpretation of evidence. Evidence must exist in order to be misinterpreted, so my position's pretty clear.
I'm assuming by "standard" model you are referring to Dynamo Theory. In which case it appears as though reversals have something to do with intensity(http://www.agu.org/s...oc/hoffman.html), but the relationship remains unclear. Once again, our inability to fully explain reversals doesn't make the evidence for them dissapear.
Your polywrong position not only dodges the burden-of-proof, but omits to understand that proposals need to be internally consistent. Has anyone ever built a dynamo which can reverse polarity without reversing direction? Here's a hint: if anyone could do so, they wouldn't be admitting how "poorly understood" the process is; instead they'd be asserting that they'd "discovered" how the Earth's field is produced.
And your own source admits
Considering what's at stake, I suggest it'd be a good time for the Godless to remove their evogoggles and start examining things. If they truly believe God isn't going to take care of the Earth, they have no excuse. And if the concern over "global warming" was half sincere... well, anyone can see just how much concern there isn't for the safety and the future of the planet. I don't rightly know how it could be more abundantly clear.
The ongoing weakening of the field does not ensure that a reversal will occur.
When second-best (or third-best or worse) interpretations are permissible, who can be surprised that conclusions consistent with evolutionism are implied? Know what? When alternative interpretations of any evidence are promoted over the best interpretation in the first place, it is a strong indicator of prejudice and impartiality. Doesn't take a whale of a lot of effort to figure that out, now does it?
There's B's all over that chart. If I'd made the accusation, I'dve been called a conspiracy theorist & caught all sorts of flak. Thanks for sparing me. Take a look folks - it's right there.
You may want to take a look at more than one sample before you get too excited such as this one or this one. Seriously, there's quite a few on the page I linked you to alone and that is just an update page. You'll find that not every set of data makes for a good chronology though some clearly do, and those that don't are still presented and problematic areas clearly marked. That kind of blows the whole "they just discard things that don't line up with their beliefs" out of the water.
It doesn't take much effort at all to figure out what makes for a "good chronologyÃ‚Â®" when evolutionism is involved, either.
(By the way, if you would be consistent in your propagandizing, you might consider accusing creationists of denying the existence of trees.)