Could Erratic Blocks give Flood Plausibility?

Erratics are readily explained by glaciation. There has been a lot of research on the subject, and erratics can be seen in motion today associated with the many glaciers that are still active.With erratics, there is simply no need to stretch for another explanation. The current explanation explains all of the relevant facts, while the global flood idea was dismissed about 200 years ago by early geologists who had been seeking to prove that the flood actually happened.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I'm really not sure what you're saying.If by "marine life up high; marine life = water presence" you are referring to marine fossils on mountain tops, there is an entire thread on just that subject that has been active up until this past week. You should be able to get the answers you need there, or to pose additional questions.Glaciers get their water from snowfall. It accumulates year after year and builds up vertically. The weight eventually pushes the resulting ice to the sides (downhill mostly). Glaciers will grow if there is more accumulation than there is melt at the terminal end.During the glacial episodes the ice accumulated in places to a depth of up to three miles. That, and the significantly colder temperatures--less melting at the edges--forced glaciers into many parts of the northern US. Many mountain ranges that are now free of glaciers still bear the distinctive marks showing where the glaciers scoured the landscape.But these glaciers resulted from snowfall, not from some contact with oceans.I hope this helps. If not, perhaps you could reframe the question?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Another critical point on the Channeled Scablands:If we can see evidence from these floods at the end of the last ice age, why can't we see evidence of a far greater flood at a much more recent date?By the way, I did a number of field trips to that area in grad school, and got to study some of the formations up close and personal. Extremely interesting!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.