Also using the Hawaiian Islands example, this is well done (and of which Ken is coauthor):
I wonder how creationist theories of plate tectonics (on steroids) deal with the Hawaiian hot spot and the long line of islands with sequential ages. Including the Emperor Seamounts. Anyone?
This covers it:
Here is what Andrew Snelling has to say on the topic:
Old-earth, secular geologists say this plate movement has always been slow and gradual. To bolster their supposed case, they point to an interesting correlation. If you plot the radiometric ages of the different islands and seamounts against the distances from Kilauea, the rate of 2.6–3.6 inches (6.6–9.1 cm) per year just “happens to be” about the same as the plate movement today. However, if the plate motion had been uniformly slow at today’s rate, all the volcanic islands should have been of similar sizes.
Apparently, the size difference in islands refutes the standard assumption by those evil evolutionist scientists.
Wow. I wonder if it’s also true that all the islands should be above water. But the “older” ones, the Emperor Seamounts, are all submerged! Take that, evolutionists. There’s no mechanism that could possibly reduce the sizes of islands.
That sinking feeling in your gut is the proof of YEC!! 
Joking aside, the coral record in the seamount chain is really cool. As they moved northward and into cooler waters the corals stopped growing, so we have a series of snapshots from that period of time. I think I have run across U/Th dating of those corals somewhere, but can’t find it at the moment.
I read the AIG article by Snelling and found it amazing that he would casually speak of lava building tall mountains—somehow in association with Noah’s flood, even though the Bible says nothing about this— but then explain that their flat tops were the result of erosion. Considering the hardness of such rock, how does a few thousands years since Noah’s flood possibly account for so much erosion?
I realize that basalt rock formed from lava erodes faster than granite, but I wondered about the actual rates. Some quick searches online yielded a range of 1.7mm/thousand-years to 5mm/thousand-years. (For example: http://www.uwyo.edu/geolgeophys/people/faculty/ksims/_files/docs/sims-et-al-geology-2007.pdf)
Of course, if basalt rock from lava-built mountains eroded at even the high rate of half of a centimeter per thousand years, the approximately 4400 years since Noah’s flood (if we consider Bishop Ussher’s calculation, which many YECs accept) would calculate at about 4.4 x 0.5cm= 2.2 centimeters, which is a little less than one inch. That’s hardly much of a “flattening” of a mountain top.
I’m amazed that a PhD geologist like Snelling can not only arbitrarily introduce supersonic tectonic plate-speeds (without any concern for the massive water-boiling energies generated thereby) but also assume some sort of hyper-speed erosion forces flattening lava-built mountains.
Perhaps this is another context where a supernatural miracle must be introduced in order to solve the problem. That’s the great thing about “creation science”, whether it be the old Gish-Morris-Whitcomb variety or the more recent R.A.T.E. Project. Divine intervention can make any imagined “science” and calculations work out just fine.