Here is something to think over:
Life.
With all the technological advances and all of the supposed knowledge, humans can not revive even a single cell. Let alone something as simple as bacteria. Once its dead, its dead. As if its missing the spirit that drives it.
Think on it.
I purposely have avoided this exact thought process because it inevitably leads to religion being brought into the discussion, which inevitably leads to the discussion being trainwrecked by people who can't seem to grasp that science and "God" or intelligent design can indeed coexist.
Intelligent design is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.
Nice job quoting Wikipedia. Another example of people not being able to think for themselves.
The same is true of Darwinism, the "Big Bang", etc. regarding no testable or tenable hypotheses. And they are incorrect regarding "empirical support" - it's just not the folks they want to listen to. And that's OK. I don't listen to "Big Bangers" or evolutionists myself.
The problem with most people is they are unwilling to really research and learn, despite having more information at their fingertips than ever in the history of man. Most simply regurgitate what they were "taught" in school and now receive via social media and the "news". So called "scientists" or "experts" make ridiculous claims and stand unchallenged, empowering them to posit outright bullshit as "science".
Read how distances to other stars are "calculated" via parallax. Now take what you were taught in trigonometry and apply it to the method. Tell me how much accuracy there can really be when measuring vast distances from two points relatively close together in our solar system. After that exercise, take a look at the "redshift" measurement system. Note that one of the fundamental premises used is that
all galaxies of the same type are the same physical size. Think about that for a moment. We can't accurately measure our own galaxy and now we are saying we can use an unproven data point as a foundation for all of the measurements made. Gee, that sounds scientific and provable, huh?
It's funny - when data proves that a long-held belief is wrong (called theories by people who don't know the true definition), they cling to it like ticks on a rat. Why? Egos? Afraid of losing funding for research that is 100% off-base? Afraid of seeing their life's work being dismissed as wrong?
Be careful listening to people who say things counter to what common sense tells you. For example - the polio vaccine. It is proven to prevent you from getting polio. Period. Because you don't have polio you can't spread polio. It doesn't allow you to get a less intense form of polio. In short - it fits the exact definition of a vaccine - if you happen to have an older dictionary that is.
Now apply that set of rules to the COVID-19 concoction that was injected into billions of people. Somehow, "scientists" called it a vaccine even though it didn't prevent people from contracting it, it didn't stop the spread, etc. It literally did not meet ANY part of the definition for a vaccine, yet it is still talked about and defended today as if it was some great miracle. It was so shitty that Merriam-Webster updated their definition of a vaccine to try and include it. Here's the definition of vaccine from the 2020 version of the dictionary:
"a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease."
Here's the definition from the 2024 version of the same dictionary:
"a preparation that is administered – as by injection – to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease."
Voltaire said "If I can make you believe an absurdity, I can make you commit an atrocity." They've done well to make most people believe absurdities. We can only hope the atrocities are not closely following.