I just watched part 2 of the series (yes, I'm aware of all the other things I could be doing with my time!), about the Alps and Himalayas. The narrator has committed a major strawman fallacy here. He asks how India could have uprooted itself from the ocean floor, and on the impossibility of this he dismisses as "stupid and even preposterous" the idea that the Himalayas were caused by the collision of India and Asia. The problem is that nobody suggests that the Indian subcontinent was uprooted from the ocean floor. The creator of this movie has obviously done at least a little research into geology, so it's especially irritating when he deliberately misrepresents conventional thought in this way.
The narrator acknowledges that "the stacked-up mountains are there, and still they grow." Then he goes on to contrive a vague explanation for their formation involving crustal extension. That's right - he attempts to attribute the folding and thrusting of the Himalayas to extension of the subcontinent to the south, but he doesn't even hint at a mechanism. It seems that the target audience of this material are expected to be satisfied by polished animations and hollow dogma.
The narrator acknowledges that "the stacked-up mountains are there, and still they grow." Then he goes on to contrive a vague explanation for their formation involving crustal extension. That's right - he attempts to attribute the folding and thrusting of the Himalayas to extension of the subcontinent to the south, but he doesn't even hint at a mechanism. It seems that the target audience of this material are expected to be satisfied by polished animations and hollow dogma.