Evidence for God from Science

Don't the non-dipole elements account for less than 20% of the force? I can't remember the exact number.

Also, how would the field gain strenght if there's no energy or electricty or chocolate chip cookie dough added?

The one that struck me the hardest was, how do you get 30 miles (minimum) of rock to go underneath another rock about the same height, into a pool of viscous metal, when the forces don't exist to do that (and if the forces did exist, they wouldn't push the rock, they'd crush it). As we keep on going at it on these posts, I realize one things over and over again...scientists know diddly squat compared to all that's out there.

I tried to look up on a search engine at the college articles (probably peer reviewed)(lol) using the keywords flaws of evolution and flaws of dating techniques

How would the field lose strength if it is a closed system like you say?

Closed: Can't exchange mass, but can exchange thermal energy with surroundings

I think the field drifted several degrees during the Flood, based on the sources I've already spit out

None of which are scientifically sound.

Paleomagnetic Pitfalls
One of the main props of continental drift is paleomagnetism -- the study of the magnetism of ancient rocks and sediments. The inclination and declination of fossil magnetism can be used to infer the location of a virtual magnetic pole relative to the location of the sample in question. When virtual poles are determined from progressively older rocks from the same continent, the poles appear to wander with time. Joining the former, averaged pole positions generates an apparent polar wander path. Different continents yield different polar wander paths, and from this it has been concluded that the apparent wandering of the magnetic poles is caused by the actual wandering of the continents over the earth's surface. The possibility that there has been some degree of true polar wander -- i.e. a shift of the whole earth relative to the rotation axis (the axial tilt remaining the same) -- has not, however, been ruled out.
That paleomagnetism can be unreliable is well established (Barron, Harrison, and Hay, 1978; Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff, 1972). For instance, paleomagnetic data imply that during the mid-Cretaceous Azerbaijan and Japan were in the same place (Meyerhoff, 1970a)! The literature is in fact bursting with inconsistencies (Storetvedt, 1997). Paleomagnetic studies of rocks of different ages suggest a different polar wander path not only for each continent, but also for different parts of each continent. When individual paleomagnetic pole positions, rather than averaged curves, are plotted on world maps, the scatter is huge, often wider than the Atlantic. Furthermore, paleomagnetism can determine only paleolatitude, not paleolongitude. Consequently, it cannot be used to prove continental drift.
Paleomagnetism is plagued with uncertainties. Merrill, McElhinny, and McFadden (1996, p. 69) state: "there are numerous pitfalls that await the unwary: first, in sorting out the primary magnetization from secondary magnetizations (acquired subsequent to formation), and second, in extrapolating the properties of the primary magnetization to those of the earth's magnetic field." The interpretation of paleomagnetic data is founded on two basic assumptions: 1. when rocks are formed, they are magnetized in the direction of the geomagnetic field existing at the time and place of their formation, and the acquired magnetization is retained in the rocks at least partially over geologic time; 2. the geomagnetic field averaged for any time period of the order of 105 years (except magnetic-reversal epochs) is a dipole field oriented along the earth's rotation axis. Both these assumptions are questionable.
The gradual northward shift of paleopole "scatter ellipses" through time and the gradual reduction in the diameters of the ellipses suggest that remanent magnetism becomes less stable with time. Rock magnetism is subject to modification by later magnetism, weathering, metamorphism, tectonic deformation, and chemical changes. Moreover, the geomagnetic field at the present time deviates substantially from that of a geocentric axial dipole. The magnetic axis is tilted by about 11° to the rotation axis, and on some planets much greater offsets are found: 46.8° in the case of Neptune, and 58.6° in the case of Uranus (Merrill, McElhinny, and McFadden, 1996). Nevertheless, because earth's magnetic field undergoes significant long-term secular variation (e.g. a westward drift), it is thought that the time-averaged field will closely approximate a geocentric axial dipole. However, there is strong evidence that the geomagnetic field had long-term nondipole components in the past, though they have largely been neglected (Van der Voo, 1998; Kent and Smethurst, 1998). To test the axial nature of the geomagnetic field in the past, paleoclimatic data have to be used. However, several major paleoclimatic indicators, along with paleontological data, provide powerful evidence against continental-drift models, and therefore against the current interpretation of paleomagnetic data (see below).
It is possible that the magnetic poles have wandered considerably with respect to the geographic poles in former times. Also, if in past geological periods there were stable magnetic anomalies of the same intensity as the present-day East Asian anomaly (or slightly more intensive), this would render the geocentric axial dipole hypothesis invalid (Beloussov, 1990). Regional or semi-global magnetic fields might be generated by vortex-like cells of thermal-magmatic energy, rising and falling in the earth's mantle (Pratsch, 1990). Another important factor may be magnetostriction -- the alteration of the direction of magnetization by directed stress (Jeffreys, 1976; Munk and MacDonald, 1975). Some workers have shown that certain discordant paleomagnetic results that could be explained by large horizontal movements can be explained equally well by vertical block rotations and tilts and by inclination shallowing resulting from sediment compaction (Butler et al., 1989; Dickinson and Butler, 1998; Irving and Archibald, 1990; Hodych and Bijaksana, 1993). Storetvedt (1992, 1997) has developed a model known as global wrench tectonics in which paleomagnetic data are explained by in-situ horizontal rotations of continental blocks, together with true polar wander. The possibility that a combination of these factors could be at work simultaneously significantly undermines the use of paleomagnetism to support continental drift.