[deltaonefour]

> Wouldn't our current understanding of chemistry be enough to prove that turning water into wine is not possible? Or viceversa, be able to prove that it is possible?

This is just stringing together random facts and figures to form a logical deduction. That's not science.

To do science you need to be able to run a trial and observe an event that supports your hypothesis. Then you need to run this trial several times to make sure that the observed event is consistent. Even after this at any subsequent time after the experiment there can be new observations that contradict the hypothesis.

My question is what is... what is the experiment you would run to prove water can't be turned into wine. Science involves evidence that must be observable in some form.

The medical industry does not simply use our knowledge of biochemistry to engineer medicine and give it to people. They run trials and testing to increase confidence around the efficacy of the medicine. That is science.

[saganus]

I think I was still asleep. You are correct.

I don't think you could prove that.