Thank you for your reply.

I don't think most of the "sings" you are pointing to are precise enough. It's all vague statements that gel with reality only on the surface level, but do not really provide useful or testable detail. So yes, I don't find this to be a convincing sign that a god exists and I don't see why people having some vague anatomical knowledge a few hundred years ago would mean that a god signs and exists anyway.

If a god existed and cared about our opinion on his existence, he could issue much more convincing signs. What's the point of this vagueness anyway?