Which is, quite obviously, an example of confirming evidence which increased our confidence, not of proof. An astrologer, a phrenologist, a flat-earther, or a "creationist scientist" can do exactly the same thing--why aren't their offerings also proof? All you have done is increase your confidence in theories in this manner. It is not remotely proof, either formally or vernacularly, even if you plan to insist that it is until we all turn blue and rot. You have learned sloppy usage, in your little corner of science's realm, and you keep insisting your sloppy usage is some kind of established dogma. It is not. Most scientists in the public eye have enough sense to refrain from claiming that natural science theories are "proven".
Yep, sloppy enough for Science, Journal of Neuroscience, JAMA, American Journal of Physiology...we're known as a sloppy lot.
It's just a suggestion that you might want to lighten up on the usage. If it can be accepted as in a peer seminar setting and peer reviewed journals as proof, then it is accepted usage as proof.
To the general public, calling something a theory is as misleading as calling something a law. The law of gravity is incontrovertible but the theory of evolution is immediately assumed as an uncertainty.