Quoted from "NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC" July 2004;
"Every eleven years, on average, the sun reverses its overall magnetic polarity: its north magnetic pole becomes a south pole, and vice versa. So a complete magnetic solar cycle-returning the sun to its initial orientation-actually lasts an average of 22 years. No one completely understands the entire process, just as no one understands why the Earth's field also reverses itself at seemingly random intervals, most recently about 780,000 years ago."
(my note; I don't buy the 780,000 number)
Continuing the quote...
"That's unfortunate, because there's evidence that sunspot cycles have direct consequences for human life. Witness the sobering case of the Maunder Minimum, the eerie stretch from 1645 to 1715 in which records show that practically no sunspots appeared on the solar face.
It was named after British astronomer E. Walter Maunder, who in the 1890's tried in vain to stir up interest in this aberration. In the 1970's American solar physicist Jack Eddy revisited Maunder's work, noting that the Minimum offered "a good test case for solar influence on climate". Eddy, like most solar scientists at the time, wasn't convinced that variations in sunspot numbers-the most visible indicator of solar activity-had any link to terrestrial climate. He examined data on the growth rings of trees from the 70-year-long minimum. They contained significantly more carbon 14 than trees before and after the period. That meant that higher amounts of cosmic radiation had been reaching Earth during that time. (A magnectically active sun reduces the cosmic radiation we receive.) So, Eddy concluded, there might be a connection after all."
Jim's comment;
This PROVES carbon 14 to be the INEXACT 'science', we literalists have been shouting to the world, it is. There is no possible way for you evolutionists to claim astronomical numbers for anything based on carbon 14 dating. Why? Because you have no way of knowing for sure HOW MUCH c-14 is in a given thing to start with. You have no way of knowing how much may have been added nor how much may have been withheld. Your own evolutionistic publication has demonstrated for the world that C-14 can NOT be counted on.
You will note the trees during the minimum had MORE C-14 than the trees before and after the 70-year period in question.
You have no way of knowing how many times this could have occured during the last 6000 years, therefore you have no RELIABLE way to date your so-called "pre-historic" fossils.
This may or may not have anything to do with this thread> I only offer it as proof FROM YOUR OWN CAMP that you begin with a flawed model, therefore your conclusions are flawed.
In His service;
Jim