How often do scientists even bother with the word proof?
Good question. It may be more than you think.
In the natural resources business, the concept of 'proven reserves' has a long and checkered history. That is partly due to unscrupulous operators, but also to a lack of consistent definition. Only in recent years have they tried to tighten up the restrictions to make them more rigid and yet transparent to the public.
In another sense, I could say that I have proven the source of a gravity anomaly by drilling into a particular rock type and feel pretty certain that I'm correct. However, someone else may have a different standard for proof, because one data point might be insufficient.
And then there are some people who are just overconfident and feel that anything they do is proof positive.
To me, the key word is 'certainty', and in the context of this discussion, the problem is that faith provides a level of certainty that can never be matched by mere data and the principles we use to interpret them. YECs want
absolute proof because that is what they think they already have; and there's no going back on that.
And that is why they can glibly say that 'you have no evidence', or 'your interpretation is wrong' and (in their own mind) get away with it.
And so it goes...