Ha, huh because.... Science says so!

[Esquilax]

Again the thing is sport that the only example of a legged snake we have just so happens to be 150 million years old (supposedly ) even so, it does not mean that was the last legged snake in existence.

You're actually right there, though your overall point is still wrong: we actually do know of other snake species with legs later on in history than this newly discovered one. See, the big discovery with the snake you listed is that it has four legs, it's a tetrapod, not that it has legs at all. Another species of snake, closer on the family tree to modern snakes though not actually related to any of them, has legs too, though it only had two of them, rear ones that were getting to be vestigial.

That snake is ninety million years old; its closer than the 110-120 million of the new discovery, but it still predates all language by a long ass time, is several speciation events away from even the common ancestor of modern snakes, and had lost two of its legs in twenty million years. But credit where credit's due, you are correct in saying that this new discovery is not necessarily the last legged snake in existence.

The larger problem, however, is that we have no evidence at all that they existed concurrently with human beings, and that your entire position is that your wild claim hasn't been disproven, which is a shifting of the burden of proof.