Solar cycles concatenating: Sounds like apophenia, but please lay out the evidence if you like.
Polar shift and magnetic cycles: Yeah, that one's been used by flood proponents too. Geomagnetic "reversal occurrences appear to be statistically random." The most recent is put at 780,000 years ago. The existence of a "Cretaceous normal superchron" of no reversal for 30 million years indicates to me that the uniformitarian interpretation is woefully incomplete (i.e., evidence neither of randomness nor of cycle but of bursts of activity related to cataclysms). But I don't recall offhand what I've seen about what the claims of reversal epochs actually arise from or amount to. Oh yeah, it was based on collecting a bunch of rocks of two different magnetisms and assuming the Geologic Column correctly shows those rock ages. So all such observations are handled by the same approach, namely how did the rock get there and have two different polarities, and flood theorists have worked that for awhile.
If we have evidence something happened, I claim it happened in the scale of thousands of years. If we have evidence that something would have happened if the universe was old enough, like the fit of the sun's movement to an oscillator, then I don't deny that it would happen but I deny that we have any evidence it's happened. The sun's path being oscillating is likely enough but every astrophysicist admits it's all inferred from a very brief period of observation for the sun and other stars. The Age of Aquarius has real astronomic meaning but there's no evidence that it's happened before (and even the alleged evidence only stays on the thousands scale).
All three of those articles literally show Brownian motion mapped from the iron core and nothing about cyclicality, so I assumed you referred to reversal cycles, which are at least defined even if not cyclical. If your new theory is that the movement of the magnetic poles causes near-extinction events at multiples of 6,480 years there's nothing in the evidence for that. The OP theory is literally about Aquarius and Leo and friends. Do you want me to look at the other geological arguments to see if they rely on the same three Antarctic ice cores as others do? Such as when Bill Nye said volcanic ash was obviously constantly produced for 15 years contrary to all observation?
Solar cycles concatenating: Sounds like apophenia, but please lay out the evidence if you like.
Polar shift and magnetic cycles: Yeah, that one's been used by flood proponents too. Geomagnetic "reversal occurrences appear to be statistically random." The most recent is put at 780,000 years ago. The existence of a "Cretaceous normal superchron" of no reversal for 30 million years indicates to me that the uniformitarian interpretation is woefully incomplete (i.e., evidence neither of randomness nor of cycle but of bursts of activity related to cataclysms). But I don't recall offhand what I've seen about what the claims of reversal epochs actually arise from or amount to. Oh yeah, it was based on collecting a bunch of rocks of two different magnetisms and assuming the Geologic Column correctly shows those rock ages. So all such observations are handled by the same approach, namely how did the rock get there and have two different polarities, and flood theorists have worked that for awhile.
If we have evidence something happened, I claim it happened in the scale of thousands of years. If we have evidence that something would have happened if the universe was old enough, like the fit of the sun's movement to an oscillator, then I don't deny that it would happen but I deny that we have any evidence it's happened. The sun's path being oscillating is likely enough but every astrophysicist admits it's all inferred from a very brief period of observation for the sun and other stars. The Age of Aquarius has real astronomic meaning but there's no evidence that it's happened before (and even the alleged evidence only stays on the thousands scale).
I didn’t say pole reversals, you disingenuous yappy retard
Do we have evidence for "cyclical shifts in the earth’s magnetic poles" other than the stochastically noncyclical reversals in magnetic ore?
Holy fucking retard alert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_drift
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_excursion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_wander
All three of those articles literally show Brownian motion mapped from the iron core and nothing about cyclicality, so I assumed you referred to reversal cycles, which are at least defined even if not cyclical. If your new theory is that the movement of the magnetic poles causes near-extinction events at multiples of 6,480 years there's nothing in the evidence for that. The OP theory is literally about Aquarius and Leo and friends. Do you want me to look at the other geological arguments to see if they rely on the same three Antarctic ice cores as others do? Such as when Bill Nye said volcanic ash was obviously constantly produced for 15 years contrary to all observation?