Could Erratic Blocks give Flood Plausibility?

I think you've misread the opening paragraph. At one point it refers to "many curious phenomena that had hitherto been vaguely regarded as indications of diluvial agency," and either you've somehow misinterpreted that as an endorsement of diluvialism, or what you really meant to say is that the article mentions that diluvialism had been a common explanation in the past. Flood waters can move massive boulders, but not uphill. Deep water flows very slowly anyway, and water would have to be very deep for erratics raised hundreds of feet in elevation.Erratics found at elevations higher than their origins were carried along by the flow of ice, whose flow pressure is slow and relentless even when the glacier is very, very thick. A glacier a mile or two thick would have no trouble moving huge boulders over the undulating underlying landscape, even uphill hundreds of feet, as it flows more generally down toward sea level.Sometimes erratics are explained by icebergs that break off of glaciers, float out to sea, then drop their sediment content including huge boulders as they melt. This is a less common form of erratic transport, but it explains erratics laying in the middle of plains that were at one time covered by water, or in other cases were sea beds that were later raised by tectonic forces.In comparison to the huge amount of glacial evidence associated with erratics, there is a complete lack of any associated flood evidence. A flow of water capable of moving a huge boulder weighing hundreds of tons would scour the landscape down to bedrock, yet erratics are almost always found lying atop landscapes untouched by any of the indications normally associated with floods.--Percy

I hope you're talking about marine fossils associated with erratics, which is on-topic, and not marine fossils on mountain tops, which isn't.When erratics are dragged along landscape that was once sea bottom, then that sea bottom and any marine fossils contained therein will be gouged out of the landscape by the erratic and some of it dragged along. This kind of debris is almost always easily recognizable as glacial till, which is the material glaciers gouge out of the landscape and push along as they flow to sea level.Huge piles of glacial till form moraines at the greatest extent of glaciers. A glacier is like a bulldozer pushing all before it while at the same time grinding everything smaller and smaller. The grinding effects of glaciers are easily recognizable, most obviously in the scratched striations along valley walls where glaciers once roamed.The debris making up glacial till could not be co-located with erratics if it were of flood origin. It would take very energetic water to move a boulder of hundreds of tons, and when the water lost sufficient energy so that it could no longer move the boulder, it would still have many times sufficient energy to keep the till suspended. That the till and the boulder reside together indicates that they were deposited together, which could only happen with a glacier.Floods leave one type of very distinctive evidence behind, glaciers another. All the evidence associated with erratics is glacial, and none of it is deluvial. So when you ask questions like, "Well, couldn't a flood have done this?" or "Couldn't have flood have done that?" depending upon the specifics the answer could well be, "Yes!" Then, as others have noted, you have to go on to say, "Okay, so it is possible, but there are other things that could have produced this, so what evidence should I seek that would allow me to identify the correct answer?"Questions like this had already been asked and answered well over a century ago. I think I already mentioned that the paper you cited is over a century old. The conclusion then was that erratics are of glacial origin, and during the intervening century even more evidence has accumulated to the point where we are very confident in this conclusion. No one within science questions this today. The only questions come from those with views based on religion rather than science.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.