> Putting a scorpion on Mars wouldn't mean much of anything at all, save that the scorpion is already suitably adapted to its own niche... on Earth.

Yes, yes--but it would be fun.

> Trying to explain this in nontechnical terms without math or diagrams (like I did before) can give me a headache.

Heh. I believe that.

Briefly: (1) "We know that the two phenomena are essentially different because they have different origins, and (2) we know the origins are different because the two phenomena are essentially different."

> Any polar magnetic alignment detected is due to the influence of the earth's field itself.
> ...
> Erm. It's not "entirely" confirmed because we haven't been doing "direct" observations over a "sufficient" timeframe (we might estimate that 200 million years' worth of active notetaking and 8 million human generations' worth of time should be about right for "entirely confirmed" observation, right?)

That's silly. "The matter" referred to the given explanation, not the data. I argue this because too often people are content to accept an idea without any idea as to how it was derived. [It ain't pretty most of the time, including this one.] The data overwhelmingly show changes in the magnetic field: the paleomagnetic stripes alongside the mid-Atlantic rift would not mirror each other in any other scenario. This leads remarkably well into the next--

> If we throw out all inferred observation without offering a reasonable explanation that equally fits most of the available facts, just how much and what kind of confirmation should we be satisfied with?

Being someone who is intensely interested in the philosophy of science, this caught my eye. The question is wrong. First, there seems to be confusion about data and evidence. Data is merely observed information. Evidence is data that has only one possible interpretation. Second, it is totally irrational, though psychologically pleasing, to knowingly hold an incorrect explanation, even tenuously. Therefore, if an explanation does not fit every single piece of data, it ought to be instantly discarded. In some fields, especially geology and paleontology, the incentive to produce positive theory-matching results is overwhelming--thus, the very high rate of fraud and fudging of data in those two. Theories [Any textbook will claim that "theories are what scientists are most sure of," but that is nothing more than an attempt by lazy scientists to define away the need for vigorous research. Theories which are proven, like relativity, ought to be renamed.] are entirely acceptable, however, as frameworks to work within. For example, there are numerous samples of sea floor spreading data which contradict the current supposed arrangement of tectonic plates. This does not mean that the theory must be thrown out. The evidence does support the theory that the crust is shifting; it does not support the nontheoretical lines drawn on the map. One ought never, ever dismiss data because it does match match the explanation. Refute the data, refute the explanation, or both--those are the only options.

Returning to the paleomagnetic records, there are some here in Oregon which show extremely fast change of the magnetic field: 6° per day at certain times! Critics have largely been relegated to the "I just don't believe it," line of defense, as the data has been repeatedly verified. The time frame, interestingly, is not evidentially supported; it makes many assumptions, most importantly that sea floor spreading is constant or nearly so.

And finally, it has to be said: creationist physicists have predicted magnetic field strengths far more accurately than others. Certain creationist models of planetary magnetism, notably a really far-out one by D.R. Humphreys, precisely predicted the magnetic field strengths of the gas giant planets while uniformitarian models had a 10,000,000% error. Even if Humphreys' model is wrong, it is less wrong than the dynamo theorists. [Note: This too is not evidence. Humphreys' model, while mathematically the only accurate model, includes assumptions about the formation of planets that cannot be verified.]

> Aside: if you could find time to take some advanced geological courses in radiometrics, it would make things a lot easier to discuss :-)

I'd love to! Unfortunately, there'll be a few years 'twixt now and then.
The latest CEN Technical Journal made my head swim when I tried to read "Contra Rb-Sr dating: an isotope fractionation mechanism for the nonradiogenic origin of excess Strontium-87." Now that's a mouthful. It's healthy to read far beyond one's level at times.

gab"Einstein once said that the hardest thing in the universe to understand is the tax code."by