No, thousands of scientists do not disagree with that. Or at least you'll have to provide a source for that claim, instead of just asserting it and expecting me or others to take it seriously.

Being "there" doesn't make a difference. The evidence is just as overwhelming as I laid out in great detail. I have not been to the future either, but I can tell you for sure - 100% - that on the 26. of May 2021 we will see a total lunar eclipse (or often called "blood moon") that I invite anyone of you to note in your callenders and then go out and witness. I don't need anything but knowing that the laws of gravity stays fixed, like the radiometric dating, to be sure this will happen.

I'm also curious if you don't think we could ever gain knowledge about something like a murder without having eye-witnesses. If a detective arrives at the scene of a crime, and make all sorts of discoveries that all point in the direction of a certain answer as to who commited teh crime, then that is evidence. Likewise, I don't need to observe day-by-day evolution taking place, or the formating of the earth to know a lot about how it happened.

Last point. The burden of proof is on you, or any other "scientist" who would argue that the many natural laws demonstrated to make accurate predictions going forward can somehow not do the same looking backwards. As they continue to be robust and independent branches of science from biology, chemistry, geology, etc, confirms the same models, the default position is that they can. If we are to form our believes based on what is most likely to be true, and not on what we wish to be true, then this should be our frame of mind.