That's fine, you are a biologist then. That's about what I thought, as it is the natural science most removed from mathematics and proof. All of the above are

That's fine, you are a biologist then. That's about what I thought, as it is the natural science most removed from mathematics and proof. All of the above are nice indicators, but not above being faked by people who know exactly how these things are normally verified, except maybe the "finding lots of fossils nearby" point, which is unlikely if that fossil finding was so spectacular. I am not emotionally involved in this argument, as you seem to be, sorry for trolling you, I just couldn't resist. You basically cannot win this argument: in the end you will have to admit that none of this constitutes proof. Another Ph.D. here who knows one or two things about proof.