Peg writes:
marine life up high
marine life = water presence
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.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.