"The scientific process did not exist a million years ago, so there is no way to test accurately a million year old subject as there was no one there to observe it,..."
Which brings us back to you releasing all the prisoners convicted on forensic evidence, where there was no one there to observe the events. Forensics is not constrained by whether the subject existed before science was invented; what matters is whether the investigator is using science now.
The logic of forensics is the same whether the body is 2 weeks dead or a million years dead (though the techniques will obviously be different, as in the later case you will be working with fossils.)
So you presume to know my "one objective"? Actually, I have many objectives, one of which is to point out the inconsistency of certain arguments I see being put forth. For example, you *once again* bemoan the fact "there was no one there to observe it" with regards to a million-year old subject, while glossing over the point I made about scientists drawing conclusions about a murder scene of which they were not observers.
The principle, you see, is whether or not we can draw conclusions about events which have had no observers, using "just" the evidence available. There are so many examples of this (forensics being but a single one) it is impossible to list them all. Some situations have more available evidence, some less. But the principle remains.