Arguments from the supposed erosion rates of Niagara and carbon dating do not apply to plate tectonics, which does not require quotes, as continental drift does not.
Then I'll directly apply it.
Don Firth said:
Rate of continental drift – 1 to 10 centimeters per year.
If one looks at a map of the Atlantic Ocean, it doesn't take much imagination to see that, allowing for some variation in outline over the eons, you could fit the west coast of Europe and Africa together with the east coast of North and South America, like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. These four continents used to be in contact with each other. Essentially, one continent. And over time, due to the action of plate tectonics driven by the monumental forces at work in the earth's interior, they have drifted apart.
Another example of continental drift are the Hawaiian Islands. The islands formed due to an up-welling of magma, or a "hot spot" in the ocean floor. Lava spews out of the hot spot, builds up, and hardens, and forms an island. But the Pacific Plate gradually moves northwest until the magma upwelling from the hot spot seeks a more direct route and another island forms. Hawaii, the "big island," is now over the hot spot. Lava is upwelling through the volcanoes on the island, flowing to the sea where it cools and hardens, and the island increases in size. Soon (in geological time), the plate will move far enough northwest that the upwelling will burst through somewhere southeast of the big island, and another Hawiian island will begin to emerge from the sea.
The drifting of the Pacific plate formed a subduction zone off the coast of Japan. Tension built up until it released, part of the Pacific plate suddenly slid under Japan, and this is what caused the Fukushima earthquake.
It is this sort of tectonic activity that causes earthquakes. It also raises mountains. The African plate, forcing itself against the European plate is what "wrinkled" the earth's crust and raised the Alps. The Juan de Fuca plate pushing against the North American plate is what raised the Cascade Mountains on the west coast of the United States. This, coupled with a subduction zone, causes some volcanoes. Etna and Vesuvius in southern Europe and Mt. Lassen, Mount St. Helens, and Mount Rainier in the western U. S. The South American plate is pushing against another Pacific plate, hence, the Andes. And the sometimes severe earthquakes alone the west coast of South American.
What it amounts to is the WE are living on top of the crust of slag that's drifting around on the surface of a ball of boiling nickel-iron.
Since continental drift happens at a rate of one to ten centimeters per year, contemplate how long it took for the North and South American continents and the European and African continents to drift the approximately 3,000 miles apart. Or the Hawaiian Archipelago to form.
Reconcile that with the fundamentalist Christian idea that the Earth is only 6,016 (4,004 + 2012) years old!.
That would make sense, assuming that the rate of drift has been continuous. But it assumes that there hasn't been radical differences in the past such as hypercanes, huge earthquakes and major volcanic activity. It is assuming that the present is the key to the past--aka uniformity.
During the Biblical flood, there would have been catastrophic forces at work: earthquakes, volcanoes, underwater calderas going berserk, etc. etc. If all the land of the world was at one time connected, then it could easily have been split apart. Again, I do not know if all the land on earth was at one time one land mass (although it's possible, since it could be implied by Genesis 1:9; all the waters being gathered together in one place could suggest all the land being in one place too).
The only time that continental splitting could have occured would have been when 'all the fountains of the great deep were broken up", which would have provided enough water to cover the entire earth, as well as producing tremendous force that would have enabled the tectonic plates to wrench apart. The Flood is the answer to all of the evolutionary problems raised by 'continental drift': For instance, Evolutionists don't know the root cause of tectonic plates beginning to drift in the first place. But if the Flood really did happen like the Bible says, then we would see evidence of catastrophic rift all over the world. And we do.
"The African plate, forcing itself against the European plate is what "wrinkled" the earth's crust and raised the Alps.The Juan de Fuca plate pushing against the North American plate is what raised the Cascade Mountains on the west coast of the United States. This, coupled with a subduction zone, causes some volcanoes. Etna and Vesuvius in southern Europe and Mt. Lassen, Mount St. Helens, and Mount Rainier in the western U. S. The South American plate is pushing against another Pacific plate, hence, the Andes. And the sometimes severe earthquakes alone the west coast of South American."
So obviously we both agree that these sites were 'created' by rather violent forces. After all, the "African plate forcing itself against the European plate" implies.....force. Strong ones. Noah's flood would have created the force needed to quickly and effectively 'buckle' the gelogic plates and create mountains and valleys, etc. There is no evidence of them being formed over long gradual processes.
Again, what you call 'evidence for Evolution' fits better with the Creationist model.