Geomorphology has failed to explain landforms

The mainstream science view of geology fails to explain many obvious and significant geological structures, such as mountain ranges, planation surfaces, and other landscapes.

For example, “The remarkable African Planation Surface”

Therefore, geomorphologists have mostly given up attempting to explain the origin of landforms since the 1960s and 1970s. The origin of landforms in geomorphology is in such disarray that after 200 years, scientists cannot even provide a credible hypothesis for the geomorphology of southeastern England—an area where the science of geomorphology first developed. They have retreated to studying small processes observed today, such as river erosion, weathering, landslides, etc. This modern emphasis is called process geomorphology, and focuses on small timeframes and areas, while ignoring the origin of landforms altogether. Geomorphologists still hope that someday they will be able to understand the origin of landforms by studying all these observable processes, of course thinking in strict uniformitarian terms. They are confident that a study of tectonics, horizontal or vertical earth movements, will eventually enliven “long-standing problems of landscape evolution and rates of landscape change that had been largely ignored in the preceding decades.”

Michael Oard’s book, Flood by Design is an excellent source.

“Two Australian geomorphologists, Cliff Ollier and Colin Pain (2000), wrote a provocative book called The Origin of Mountains. They admit that plate tectonics, the standard explanation, rarely helps explain mountain formation. Ollier and Pain go on to list 20 proposed mechanisms for the uplift of mountains, none of which can be demonstrated (Ollier and Pain, 2000, p. 307– 310). In other words, they do not know why we have mountains.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Anti-Spam Quiz: