[Last Visible Dog]

One well-known example would be the Cosmic Microwave Background, which was (and still can be) observed (but not created in the lab) and which is considered evidence which confirms the Big Bang theory. This "mere observation" was regarded as sufficiently persuasive that it plunged the Steady State theory into oblivion.

Observations are very valid forums of supporting evidence - all I am saying is observation does not equal experimentation.

[Physicist]

all I am saying is observation does not equal experimentation.

Speaking as a practicing experimental scientist, I do not see where a line can be drawn between them. Is cosmic ray physics observation or experimentation? I have done both cosmic ray experiments and fixed target accelerator experiments, and there is essentially no difference between them. At the same time, there is no conceptual difference between a cosmic ray experiment and a telescope.

[steve-b]

Observations are very valid forums of supporting evidence - all I am saying is observation does not equal experimentation.

If you aren't claiming, at least implicitly, that only the latter can provide definitive support for a theory, there is no reason other than water-muddying to bring up the distinction at all.