Could Erratic Blocks give Flood Plausibility?

I'd just like to get some thoughts on this article. Many will claim there is absolutely no evidence of a flood, i'd just like to know why Erratic Blocks are not evidence of a great flood...*the article does initially say that diluvial flooding is the likely cause, but later researchers claim glaciers as the cause, it shows that there are different schools of thought and opinions from one person to another...If some of these erratic blocks have sea shells embedded into them, and have been found at hundreds of feet 'above' their original positions, does that not indicate that they could have been moved there by flooding? The Ice Age and Its Work I. Erratic Blocks and Ice-Sheets, by Alfred Russel Wallacea few quotes state" In the last century, Swedenborg, Linnæus, Pallas, De Luc, and many other eminent writers took notice of the remarkable fact that in Scandinavia, Russia, Germany, and Switzerland detached rocks or boulders were found, often in great abundance and of immense size, and of a kind that did not exist in situ in the same district, but which were often only to be discovered in remote localities, sometimes hundreds of miles away. ""The case of the boulders in the Isle of Man, which have been carried nearly 800 feet above their source...a granite block on the top of Cronebane, a slate hill in Ireland, and several hundred feet higher than any place where similar granite was to be found in situ; and he also noticed several deposits of limestone gravel in places from 300 to 400 feet higher than the beds of limestone rock which are from two to ten miles off. ""in the other localities ...the same ice-sheets which have distributed foreign erratics so widely over our country, and which in doing so must have passed over the sea-bottom, have in a few cases carried with them a portion of that sea-bottom, and deposited it with the erratics in the places where both are now found."and no, this has not come from a creationist website!Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : fixed url Edited by Peg, : fixed url again Edited by Peg, : non erratic block quotes removed

1. excerpts removed2. About the Diluvial origin, the earlier researchers went for the diluvial to explain the movement, but the latter researchers chose the glacial explaination.personally i dont think either can write the other off if evidence for both explanations is available? So, could these erratic blocks make the flood plausible?Edited by Peg, : question re arranged.

yes i understand thatif we look at the marine fossils found in many of the erratic blocks, it certainly must be evidence of those blocks, at some point, being in waters or somehow dislodged from wateralso glaciers are more likely to send debris 'down' as opposed to 'up' so what is to account for these erratic blocks being found at elevated positions?do you have any suggestions bluescat?

yes i see what your saying there...a boulder would more likely sink then swimim not sure if i've misread the article though, it does say that earlier geologists pointed to diluvial flooding to explain the phenomenon of erratics, but later researchers pointed to glacierswhat is impressive is that the land has gone through changes of gigantic proportions... the earths crust is relatively thin so could it be that a deluge of gigantic proportions would have the capability of changing the landscape to such an extreme? effectively uprooting mountains/glaciers??

so you dont think the geological upheaval such as erratic blocks is evidence of something catastrophic?

marine life up highmarine life = water presencehow much water and the cause of the water remains to be seen... i really dont think that it can easily be explained away as a glacial movement unless at some point the glacier itself was submerged

great link, thankyou

yes i was referring to marine fossils found on erratics