Some things you can easily dismiss with the proof of the opposite or something conflicting. But some parts of the hypothesis can't be either disproofed or proofed.

You could personally dismiss it, but you can't proof your point either. Like general archeology says humanity is only as old as the oldest evidence of it ever found, and some pseudo scientific hypothesis might say humans are older. You can't prove or disprove that. But you can't prove or disprove either that humanity is exactly as old as the oldest evidence we have. But when some older bones are discovered then you have proof that humanity is at least that old.

So yeah, absence of evidence doesn't disprove the hypothesis.

Strawman. Thanks for proving that "skeptics" are very happy to use fallacies as well