Not to put too fine a point on it, but Lake Missoula is/was small potatoes in the overall scheme of things. If memory serves, he had no small amount of difficulty in getting his work recognized before it was finally "published". After all, he was committing heresy against the conventional wisdom even then.
And without concept of tectonics, it's no wonder.
Again, if memory serves, plate tectonics; that is, the GRADUAL sliding of the plates over and under each other was adopted as an explanation for mountain building etc over gazillions of years. Sharp peaks and ridges would have long ago been reduced to rubble under the theory. Plate tectonics can't explain many of the geologic features we see today without sudden and massive movement -- which the accepted paradigm doesn't allow.
I'm unfamiliar with that particular scientific term.
Recent measurement of recent events show uplifts of 10s of meters at a time.
If you want to argue your point, you shouldn't be confined to stuff printed in the 19th and 20th century on dead trees.
Study to show thyself approved... &ct...
I read from texts dating back to the 16th century (everybody needs a hobby), and I don't take their word for mal aria.
/johnny
And while to the uninitiated tectonics may seem gradual, there are some pretty significant and immediate outcomes. There's a spot fairly close to my home where relative vertical movement along a plate boundary resulted in a single event 50 foot displacement - imagine a five story building popping out of the ground in a matter of seconds - or better yet, a Ultra-Plinian eruption, nothing gradual about that. As to the “sharp peaks and ridges”, these are the product of a combination of uplift along colliding plates, isostatic rebound, weathering, and mass wasting.
“Plate tectonics can’t explain many of the geologic features we see today without sudden and massive movement —which the accepted paradigm doesn’t allow.”
Along with celestial impacts, what about polar flips rippling the global surface?