Does it matter? I mean it’s still close enough for such a prediction so long back.

What I am saying is that, like with the “atoms”, the intuition was there. They just didn’t have the means to prove stuff

People predicted lots of things. You can’t look back and say “oh, they predicted X right” while conveniently ignoring all the other ways they predicted it wrong.

See also: Post hoc ergo propter hoc and Texas sharpshooter fallacies.

Why can't the same argument be hold for Pre-Socratic philosophers and the "atom"?