Wow.....
Entire thing is an example of spectacular idiocy.
The really rugged mountains of the world are, in fact, relatively "young" in geological terms...only tens of millions of years.
However, they're only the latest in many sets of young, rugged mountains; the Appalachians have had several extending back hundreds of millions of years.
It's fairly routine for these mountains to be eventually eroded down, and for things to go fairly "quiet" tectonically for a long time....and then when another continent or Island Arc hits, for yet another range to be built.
Article also displays a nice creation of a uniformitarian strawman, too.
"Geomorphologists who focus on this topic, on the other hand, confident their observations correspond to reality, tend to dismiss the explanations of the theorists as hopelessly out of touch with the real world."
"This disconnect between the uniformitarian theorists and uniformitarian observationalists on the issue of mountains is nicely documented in a recent book by Cliff Ollier and Colin Pain entitled, The Origin of Mountains.1 The authors are geo-morphologists who focus on field data relating to the processes such as faulting, uplift, volcanism, and erosion that sculpt mountains. In their book they repeatedly relate how geological features they and other fellow geomorphologists observe in the field fail to match the explanations of their theorist colleagues. Yet in the end they offer no suggestion as to how the disparity between the existing uniformitarian theories and their observational data can be resolved, or where the errors in the theoretical framework might lie. "
How common are these geomorphologists, and how severe is the disconnect?
I'm not surprised taht they "offer no suggestion". That can get them fired, if they aren't careful.