I have a feeling that these people have no idea what actual proof of something is.
If you add up all the uncertainties underlying claims of events said to happen hundreds of millions of years ago or more, they add up to north of 99%.
You can’t hand-wave accumulated uncertainty and declare the outcome to be a proof, not if you want to be taken seriously by serious people.
have no idea what actual proof of something is
Right back at ya. And no, the word "proof" doesn't even occur in the article, which was written by a journalist.