A note for Jonahdog:
Going back to the sacred status of scientific literature in Jonah's comments, I would like to point how native American tracking skills can help us define science. You can take classes in this. An experienced tracker can tell now many months a coyote is pregnant by its tracking. There is a scene from the true "Alone, But Not Alone" American revolution period story that the 'Iriquois warrior could track as well running at full speed as we (Germans) could spending an hour at a set of prints.'

One of the main principles of the skill is about elapsed-time or 'freshness.' A person has to check closely, down to individual grains of sand or dirt, to make conclusions.

When you come at a question this way, it is like detective work, as I have mentioned from Lewis' essay. Everything is on the table. In geology, a person has to ask 'how fast did this happen?' as often as any other question. When you see a 500 ft high pile of sedimentary deposit with no aging layers or lines, you had a slurry that was powerful enough to push that much around before it desaturated--lost liquidity. 'where did it come from?' If you find sediment from Lake Missoula in Eugene, OR, excavations, you had to have enough speed to keep everything aloft. You had to have conditions to create such speed for the slurry. Gravity otherwise drops things as quickly as possible.

When the Oso, WA, hillside slide happened a few years ago, the geologists were surprised at the distance it covered. They expected about half the distance. They had all those piles of 'scientific literature.'

You hardly hear about this kind of thing in 'scientific literature', although the Brithish catastrophic geologist Ager is familiar with it even with his denial of Genesis of one of many records of cataclysmic mantle violence.