I read it but I didn't take it as proof. A team of people when faced with a mystery and the came up with an answer.

They is not the same as proof in my book. I also did poorly in school. I'm not good at taking this as stated. I enjoy wallowing in the unknown rather than believe everything I'm told to me own detriment.

A wikipedia article does not pretend to be proof. It is a summary. For proof you would need to look at the, y'know, evidence. The decay rates of the isotopes involved are known exactly. It is hard to find anything more certain than timelines revealed by radioactive decay.

I see we disagree on this point.