Another example would be the "mere observation" of the shifting of the apparent positions of the stars near the sun during a total eclipse, which was (and is) regarded as confirmation of Einstein's theory. So far, it hasn't been re-created in the lab, so I guess the "creation science" crowd doesn't accept it.
I don't think there is anybody here from the "creation science" crowd. The topic at hand is whether or not observation is the same thing as experimentation - the evidence proves the two terms do not have the same meaning. This stems from the statement: show us a repeatable experiment that support evolution between species. The problem is you can't create a repeatable experiment that demonstrates evolution between species so the evo-reactionaries had to go off on the nonsense rant about observation is the same thing as experimentation - when that fizzled out, PatrickHenry made the false claim that somebody believes that unless it can be recreated in the lab, it is not accepted. This is utter nonsense.