Experimental science and observational science are basiclaly the same thing. Astronomy IS an observational science, but historical geology is not. The planets and stars move in relation to each other and in relation to Earth, observations over time can tell you all kinds of things about them. In the case of historical geology you have a stack of inert sediments that just lie there, and their fossil contents are dead and motionless.
Things that stay still are actually easier to observe. If all fossils moved at Mach 4, they'd be kinda ... blurry. As each one shot by with a sonic boom, paleontologists would be asking "that grey blur that just passed us at four times the speed of sound, did that look like a trilobite to you?" It would not improve the quality of the observations, is the point I'm trying to get across.
Everything you come up with in this case is just a lot of wild guesswork that can't be validated by independent tests or independent observations.
The independent tests and observations would be looking at other fossils in other rocks. Since, you know, the properties of one fossil are entirely independent of the properties of another.
Perhaps you could explain to us --- what are the independent tests and observations proving that Saturn's rings exist? Since astronomy is apparently OK by you.
My statement remains true: You CANNOT do any experiment or analysis of experiment that would prove that the fossils represent the only living things in a particular time period. But let me add: there is nothing observable about these fossils that could prove this either.
I guess that that would be why no-one claims this except possibly the voices in your head. Don't listen to the voices, Faith. They are bad voices.
Ah, the rest of your post is also shit you've made up in your head, and I'm tired. I may mock your ignorance some more tomorrow.
In this episode, we got the story of Alfred Wegener, a man who had stunning insights into how the Earth is continually reshaped through continental drift. However, very few of his fellow scientists trusted his ideas on this matter. In fact, they even created an entire conference specifically to discredit this idea and Wegener ended up dying a laughing stock in his field ...
This version of history has been oversold.
It is true that Wegener didn't manage to convince a majority. It's also true about the conference. However:
* He did in fact manage to make converts, and his ideas got into geology textbooks as a minority opinion.
* Europeans gave him a much more considerate hearing than Americans. When we hear about how badly he was treated, this is an American-centric view.
* His field was actually meteorology. His textbook on the subject became a classic translated into many languages. The fact that some people thought his drift idea was wonky didn't prevent him from being internationally recognized as the great authority on other things.
* A Chair was created especially for him at a European university (I forget which one, I could look it up) so that he could basically be Professor Of His Own Ideas.
* He died relatively young (in his early fifties, IIRC) because he died of over-exertion doing field research funded with $1.5 million in today's money. Ironically, he might have lived to see himself vindicated if only people had had less faith in him.
* Some of the things he said were demonstrably wrong.
With the benefit of hindsight, maybe his ideas should have been treated with greater respect. But it is wrong to represent him as being an outcast and a pariah; he didn't convince everyone, or even a majority, but he did quite nicely in terms of his academic career. "Died a laughing stock" is an exaggeration.