Diet soda
Options
Replies
-
VintageFeline wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »run2brazil wrote: »Wow people. I'm not talking my aunt into anything at all. She struggles with this, and she wants advice as to how she can cut down and stop drinking it. So, I asked for tips for her. You guys have really gotten carried away here.
And in what dictionary does "support" mean "healthy debate?"
So why does your aunt want to cut down her diet soda consumption? If it is because the various reasons that have been refuted here such as aspartame causes cancer so it will worsen her's or increase risk of recurrence, or is toxic, or is in itself unhealthy, then she can rest assured it does none of that. She does not need to cut it out and it is pretty much neutral in terms of health. If she wants to cut back because it is standing in the way of consuming something that does have an effect on health, well that is another story.
Once again, you can not guarantee that diet soda "does none of that." Nothing is guaranteed. Yes this link I'm posting is not "scientific enough", but I'm proving that the jury is still out on the safety of diet/regular soda (or any food/drink that has caramel color) based on the ingredients in it. Obviously there is still debate going on, so guaranteeing it's not harmful is ignorant.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/01/caramel-color-the-health-risk-that-may-be-in-your-soda/index.htm
Got a link to the study used to set the recommendations mentioned in this article? I can't see any citation myself but may just be missing it.
But also. That's about a food colouring, not aspartame, which is the issue at hand.
I didn't write the article, so no, I don't have citations. Maybe I could email the author.
And I believe this threads title is "Diet soda", not "aspartame." I've given my opinion on aspartame...The point of this post was to show that it can't be proven that it is "perfectly safe" and "not harmful." Again, I'm not saying it is harmful...it's just unknown.
Nothing that you eat, drink, inhale, ingest, inject, absorb/adsorb or otherwise take into your body has been conclusively proven to be "perfectly safe" and "not harmful". There is only the preponderance of existing scientific evidence to rely upon.
Post up a scientific study which conclusively proves and proclaims that drinking 100% pure, untreated spring water is "perfectly safe" and "not harmful". Or broccoli. Or any other supposed "clean" food/drink.
Doesn't water kill more children every year than guns?3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »run2brazil wrote: »Wow people. I'm not talking my aunt into anything at all. She struggles with this, and she wants advice as to how she can cut down and stop drinking it. So, I asked for tips for her. You guys have really gotten carried away here.
And in what dictionary does "support" mean "healthy debate?"
So why does your aunt want to cut down her diet soda consumption? If it is because the various reasons that have been refuted here such as aspartame causes cancer so it will worsen her's or increase risk of recurrence, or is toxic, or is in itself unhealthy, then she can rest assured it does none of that. She does not need to cut it out and it is pretty much neutral in terms of health. If she wants to cut back because it is standing in the way of consuming something that does have an effect on health, well that is another story.
Once again, you can not guarantee that diet soda "does none of that." Nothing is guaranteed. Yes this link I'm posting is not "scientific enough", but I'm proving that the jury is still out on the safety of diet/regular soda (or any food/drink that has caramel color) based on the ingredients in it. Obviously there is still debate going on, so guaranteeing it's not harmful is ignorant.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/01/caramel-color-the-health-risk-that-may-be-in-your-soda/index.htm
Got a link to the study used to set the recommendations mentioned in this article? I can't see any citation myself but may just be missing it.
But also. That's about a food colouring, not aspartame, which is the issue at hand.
I didn't write the article, so no, I don't have citations. Maybe I could email the author.
And I believe this threads title is "Diet soda", not "aspartame." I've given my opinion on aspartame...The point of this post was to show that it can't be proven that it is "perfectly safe" and "not harmful." Again, I'm not saying it is harmful...it's just unknown.
Nothing that you eat, drink, inhale, ingest, inject, absorb/adsorb or otherwise take into your body has been conclusively proven to be "perfectly safe" and "not harmful". There is only the preponderance of existing scientific evidence to rely upon.
Post up a scientific study which conclusively proves and proclaims that drinking 100% pure, untreated spring water is "perfectly safe" and "not harmful". Or broccoli. Or any other supposed "clean" food/drink.
Doesn't water kill more children every year than guns?
I don't have stats at hand, but wouldn't find that hard to believe at all.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »run2brazil wrote: »Wow people. I'm not talking my aunt into anything at all. She struggles with this, and she wants advice as to how she can cut down and stop drinking it. So, I asked for tips for her. You guys have really gotten carried away here.
And in what dictionary does "support" mean "healthy debate?"
So why does your aunt want to cut down her diet soda consumption? If it is because the various reasons that have been refuted here such as aspartame causes cancer so it will worsen her's or increase risk of recurrence, or is toxic, or is in itself unhealthy, then she can rest assured it does none of that. She does not need to cut it out and it is pretty much neutral in terms of health. If she wants to cut back because it is standing in the way of consuming something that does have an effect on health, well that is another story.
Once again, you can not guarantee that diet soda "does none of that." Nothing is guaranteed. Yes this link I'm posting is not "scientific enough", but I'm proving that the jury is still out on the safety of diet/regular soda (or any food/drink that has caramel color) based on the ingredients in it. Obviously there is still debate going on, so guaranteeing it's not harmful is ignorant.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/01/caramel-color-the-health-risk-that-may-be-in-your-soda/index.htm
Got a link to the study used to set the recommendations mentioned in this article? I can't see any citation myself but may just be missing it.
But also. That's about a food colouring, not aspartame, which is the issue at hand.
I didn't write the article, so no, I don't have citations. Maybe I could email the author.
And I believe this threads title is "Diet soda", not "aspartame." I've given my opinion on aspartame...The point of this post was to show that it can't be proven that it is "perfectly safe" and "not harmful." Again, I'm not saying it is harmful...it's just unknown.
Nothing that you eat, drink, inhale, ingest, inject, absorb/adsorb or otherwise take into your body has been conclusively proven to be "perfectly safe" and "not harmful". There is only the preponderance of existing scientific evidence to rely upon.
Post up a scientific study which conclusively proves and proclaims that drinking 100% pure, untreated spring water is "perfectly safe" and "not harmful". Or broccoli. Or any other supposed "clean" food/drink.
Doesn't water kill more children every year than guns?
Uh, do you mean like lack of water or do you mean like drowning? Can't imagine drinking water causes very many deaths at all.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »run2brazil wrote: »Wow people. I'm not talking my aunt into anything at all. She struggles with this, and she wants advice as to how she can cut down and stop drinking it. So, I asked for tips for her. You guys have really gotten carried away here.
And in what dictionary does "support" mean "healthy debate?"
So why does your aunt want to cut down her diet soda consumption? If it is because the various reasons that have been refuted here such as aspartame causes cancer so it will worsen her's or increase risk of recurrence, or is toxic, or is in itself unhealthy, then she can rest assured it does none of that. She does not need to cut it out and it is pretty much neutral in terms of health. If she wants to cut back because it is standing in the way of consuming something that does have an effect on health, well that is another story.
Once again, you can not guarantee that diet soda "does none of that." Nothing is guaranteed. Yes this link I'm posting is not "scientific enough", but I'm proving that the jury is still out on the safety of diet/regular soda (or any food/drink that has caramel color) based on the ingredients in it. Obviously there is still debate going on, so guaranteeing it's not harmful is ignorant.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/01/caramel-color-the-health-risk-that-may-be-in-your-soda/index.htm
Got a link to the study used to set the recommendations mentioned in this article? I can't see any citation myself but may just be missing it.
But also. That's about a food colouring, not aspartame, which is the issue at hand.
I didn't write the article, so no, I don't have citations. Maybe I could email the author.
And I believe this threads title is "Diet soda", not "aspartame." I've given my opinion on aspartame...The point of this post was to show that it can't be proven that it is "perfectly safe" and "not harmful." Again, I'm not saying it is harmful...it's just unknown.
Nothing that you eat, drink, inhale, ingest, inject, absorb/adsorb or otherwise take into your body has been conclusively proven to be "perfectly safe" and "not harmful". There is only the preponderance of existing scientific evidence to rely upon.
Post up a scientific study which conclusively proves and proclaims that drinking 100% pure, untreated spring water is "perfectly safe" and "not harmful". Or broccoli. Or any other supposed "clean" food/drink.
Doesn't water kill more children every year than guns?
Uh, do you mean like lack of water or do you mean like drowning? Can't imagine drinking water causes very many deaths at all.
I haven't verified these numbers, but a quick Google search just told me that 1,300 children die in the US each year due to gunshot wounds and about 700 children drown.1 -
My point to posting the link was to simply show that the debate on Diet Soda still exists (whether you want to believe that or not...many people still question it). It is not a closed case. That is all I was trying to show. I'm not trying to prove it's harmful...I'm not trying to prove its safe...I'm just showing that it is not a closed case as many of you say it is.12
-
My point to posting the link was to simply show that the debate on Diet Soda still exists (whether you want to believe that or not...many people still question it). It is not a closed case. That is all I was trying to show. I'm not trying to prove it's harmful...I'm not trying to prove its safe...I'm just showing that it is not a closed case as many of you say it is.
No case is ever closed. We've still got people debating whether or not the Earth is flat.
That people are still debating something doesn't mean it's a valid question or that there is even close to equal evidence on both sides.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »run2brazil wrote: »Wow people. I'm not talking my aunt into anything at all. She struggles with this, and she wants advice as to how she can cut down and stop drinking it. So, I asked for tips for her. You guys have really gotten carried away here.
And in what dictionary does "support" mean "healthy debate?"
So why does your aunt want to cut down her diet soda consumption? If it is because the various reasons that have been refuted here such as aspartame causes cancer so it will worsen her's or increase risk of recurrence, or is toxic, or is in itself unhealthy, then she can rest assured it does none of that. She does not need to cut it out and it is pretty much neutral in terms of health. If she wants to cut back because it is standing in the way of consuming something that does have an effect on health, well that is another story.
Once again, you can not guarantee that diet soda "does none of that." Nothing is guaranteed. Yes this link I'm posting is not "scientific enough", but I'm proving that the jury is still out on the safety of diet/regular soda (or any food/drink that has caramel color) based on the ingredients in it. Obviously there is still debate going on, so guaranteeing it's not harmful is ignorant.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/01/caramel-color-the-health-risk-that-may-be-in-your-soda/index.htm
Got a link to the study used to set the recommendations mentioned in this article? I can't see any citation myself but may just be missing it.
But also. That's about a food colouring, not aspartame, which is the issue at hand.
I didn't write the article, so no, I don't have citations. Maybe I could email the author.
And I believe this threads title is "Diet soda", not "aspartame." I've given my opinion on aspartame...The point of this post was to show that it can't be proven that it is "perfectly safe" and "not harmful." Again, I'm not saying it is harmful...it's just unknown.
Nothing that you eat, drink, inhale, ingest, inject, absorb/adsorb or otherwise take into your body has been conclusively proven to be "perfectly safe" and "not harmful". There is only the preponderance of existing scientific evidence to rely upon.
Post up a scientific study which conclusively proves and proclaims that drinking 100% pure, untreated spring water is "perfectly safe" and "not harmful". Or broccoli. Or any other supposed "clean" food/drink.
Doesn't water kill more children every year than guns?
Uh, do you mean like lack of water or do you mean like drowning? Can't imagine drinking water causes very many deaths at all.
I haven't verified these numbers, but a quick Google search just told me that 1,300 children die in the US each year due to gunshot wounds and about 700 children drown.
Ultimately, it depends on how you define children. The 1300 number includes criminal actors between 16-21
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf
See Pages 44,45
Drowning 647
Firearms 459
I apologize for the repeated edits2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »run2brazil wrote: »Wow people. I'm not talking my aunt into anything at all. She struggles with this, and she wants advice as to how she can cut down and stop drinking it. So, I asked for tips for her. You guys have really gotten carried away here.
And in what dictionary does "support" mean "healthy debate?"
So why does your aunt want to cut down her diet soda consumption? If it is because the various reasons that have been refuted here such as aspartame causes cancer so it will worsen her's or increase risk of recurrence, or is toxic, or is in itself unhealthy, then she can rest assured it does none of that. She does not need to cut it out and it is pretty much neutral in terms of health. If she wants to cut back because it is standing in the way of consuming something that does have an effect on health, well that is another story.
Once again, you can not guarantee that diet soda "does none of that." Nothing is guaranteed. Yes this link I'm posting is not "scientific enough", but I'm proving that the jury is still out on the safety of diet/regular soda (or any food/drink that has caramel color) based on the ingredients in it. Obviously there is still debate going on, so guaranteeing it's not harmful is ignorant.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/01/caramel-color-the-health-risk-that-may-be-in-your-soda/index.htm
Got a link to the study used to set the recommendations mentioned in this article? I can't see any citation myself but may just be missing it.
But also. That's about a food colouring, not aspartame, which is the issue at hand.
I didn't write the article, so no, I don't have citations. Maybe I could email the author.
And I believe this threads title is "Diet soda", not "aspartame." I've given my opinion on aspartame...The point of this post was to show that it can't be proven that it is "perfectly safe" and "not harmful." Again, I'm not saying it is harmful...it's just unknown.
Nothing that you eat, drink, inhale, ingest, inject, absorb/adsorb or otherwise take into your body has been conclusively proven to be "perfectly safe" and "not harmful". There is only the preponderance of existing scientific evidence to rely upon.
Post up a scientific study which conclusively proves and proclaims that drinking 100% pure, untreated spring water is "perfectly safe" and "not harmful". Or broccoli. Or any other supposed "clean" food/drink.
Doesn't water kill more children every year than guns?
Uh, do you mean like lack of water or do you mean like drowning? Can't imagine drinking water causes very many deaths at all.
I haven't verified these numbers, but a quick Google search just told me that 1,300 children die in the US each year due to gunshot wounds and about 700 children drown.
Ultimately, it depends on how you define children.
That's a good point. If I had to guess, I would think they're using 18 and under as the cutoff.
It would probably be more useful to see a breakdown by age groups within the 18 and under population. My understanding is that most drownings in children happen between 0-4.0 -
My point to posting the link was to simply show that the debate on Diet Soda still exists (whether you want to believe that or not...many people still question it). It is not a closed case. That is all I was trying to show. I'm not trying to prove it's harmful...I'm not trying to prove its safe...I'm just showing that it is not a closed case as many of you say it is.
You can't prove that computers, broccoli, or the air we breathe is 100% safe. I'm not sure what your point is other than to suggest that things are scary. Some things are scary. Bacon is a known carcinogen. Vending machines kill about 13 people per year. We gather the best information we can, vet our sources, and move on with life.6 -
My point to posting the link was to simply show that the debate on Diet Soda still exists (whether you want to believe that or not...many people still question it). It is not a closed case. That is all I was trying to show. I'm not trying to prove it's harmful...I'm not trying to prove its safe...I'm just showing that it is not a closed case as many of you say it is.
In the scientific community, the case has been closed. In the realm of blogs, its always open. Its called people play with emotions.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »run2brazil wrote: »Wow people. I'm not talking my aunt into anything at all. She struggles with this, and she wants advice as to how she can cut down and stop drinking it. So, I asked for tips for her. You guys have really gotten carried away here.
And in what dictionary does "support" mean "healthy debate?"
So why does your aunt want to cut down her diet soda consumption? If it is because the various reasons that have been refuted here such as aspartame causes cancer so it will worsen her's or increase risk of recurrence, or is toxic, or is in itself unhealthy, then she can rest assured it does none of that. She does not need to cut it out and it is pretty much neutral in terms of health. If she wants to cut back because it is standing in the way of consuming something that does have an effect on health, well that is another story.
Once again, you can not guarantee that diet soda "does none of that." Nothing is guaranteed. Yes this link I'm posting is not "scientific enough", but I'm proving that the jury is still out on the safety of diet/regular soda (or any food/drink that has caramel color) based on the ingredients in it. Obviously there is still debate going on, so guaranteeing it's not harmful is ignorant.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/01/caramel-color-the-health-risk-that-may-be-in-your-soda/index.htm
Got a link to the study used to set the recommendations mentioned in this article? I can't see any citation myself but may just be missing it.
But also. That's about a food colouring, not aspartame, which is the issue at hand.
I didn't write the article, so no, I don't have citations. Maybe I could email the author.
And I believe this threads title is "Diet soda", not "aspartame." I've given my opinion on aspartame...The point of this post was to show that it can't be proven that it is "perfectly safe" and "not harmful." Again, I'm not saying it is harmful...it's just unknown.
Nothing that you eat, drink, inhale, ingest, inject, absorb/adsorb or otherwise take into your body has been conclusively proven to be "perfectly safe" and "not harmful". There is only the preponderance of existing scientific evidence to rely upon.
Post up a scientific study which conclusively proves and proclaims that drinking 100% pure, untreated spring water is "perfectly safe" and "not harmful". Or broccoli. Or any other supposed "clean" food/drink.
Doesn't water kill more children every year than guns?
Uh, do you mean like lack of water or do you mean like drowning? Can't imagine drinking water causes very many deaths at all.
I haven't verified these numbers, but a quick Google search just told me that 1,300 children die in the US each year due to gunshot wounds and about 700 children drown.
Ultimately, it depends on how you define children.
That's a good point. If I had to guess, I would think they're using 18 and under as the cutoff.
It would probably be more useful to see a breakdown by age groups within the 18 and under population. My understanding is that most drownings in children happen between 0-4.
Note my edits and link to CDC most recent numbers 2014.
Unfortunately, there's not a good source of granular data to do comparisons from
MFP is going to butcher the formatting
1 year 1–4 5–14
Firearms 6 71 382
Drowning 29 388 230
The next age group is 15-240 -
stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »run2brazil wrote: »Wow people. I'm not talking my aunt into anything at all. She struggles with this, and she wants advice as to how she can cut down and stop drinking it. So, I asked for tips for her. You guys have really gotten carried away here.
And in what dictionary does "support" mean "healthy debate?"
So why does your aunt want to cut down her diet soda consumption? If it is because the various reasons that have been refuted here such as aspartame causes cancer so it will worsen her's or increase risk of recurrence, or is toxic, or is in itself unhealthy, then she can rest assured it does none of that. She does not need to cut it out and it is pretty much neutral in terms of health. If she wants to cut back because it is standing in the way of consuming something that does have an effect on health, well that is another story.
Once again, you can not guarantee that diet soda "does none of that." Nothing is guaranteed. Yes this link I'm posting is not "scientific enough", but I'm proving that the jury is still out on the safety of diet/regular soda (or any food/drink that has caramel color) based on the ingredients in it. Obviously there is still debate going on, so guaranteeing it's not harmful is ignorant.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/01/caramel-color-the-health-risk-that-may-be-in-your-soda/index.htm
Got a link to the study used to set the recommendations mentioned in this article? I can't see any citation myself but may just be missing it.
But also. That's about a food colouring, not aspartame, which is the issue at hand.
I didn't write the article, so no, I don't have citations. Maybe I could email the author.
And I believe this threads title is "Diet soda", not "aspartame." I've given my opinion on aspartame...The point of this post was to show that it can't be proven that it is "perfectly safe" and "not harmful." Again, I'm not saying it is harmful...it's just unknown.
Nothing that you eat, drink, inhale, ingest, inject, absorb/adsorb or otherwise take into your body has been conclusively proven to be "perfectly safe" and "not harmful". There is only the preponderance of existing scientific evidence to rely upon.
Post up a scientific study which conclusively proves and proclaims that drinking 100% pure, untreated spring water is "perfectly safe" and "not harmful". Or broccoli. Or any other supposed "clean" food/drink.
Doesn't water kill more children every year than guns?
Uh, do you mean like lack of water or do you mean like drowning? Can't imagine drinking water causes very many deaths at all.
I haven't verified these numbers, but a quick Google search just told me that 1,300 children die in the US each year due to gunshot wounds and about 700 children drown.
Ultimately, it depends on how you define children.
That's a good point. If I had to guess, I would think they're using 18 and under as the cutoff.
It would probably be more useful to see a breakdown by age groups within the 18 and under population. My understanding is that most drownings in children happen between 0-4.
Note my edits and link to CDC most recent numbers 2014.
Unfortunately, there's not a good source of granular data to do comparisons from
MFP is going to butcher the formatting
1 year 1–4 5–14
Firearms 6 71 382
Drowning 29 388 230
The next age group is 15-24
That's interesting and pretty much falls into the grouping I would initially expect. Thanks for looking it up and sharing.0 -
Water and gunshot wounds. This got me wondering if the Canadian stats are different. After all, we don't have the long and passionate love affair with guns.
Between 1994 and 2003, approximately 390 Canadian children age 14 years and under died from unintentional injuries annually, while another 25,500 were hospitalized.
http://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/child-and-youth-injury-prevention
Canadians of all ages died from firearm injuries.[1] This number includes injuries from unintentional (accidental) and intentional (suicides and homicides) firearm injuries. A total of 635 of these deaths occurred in youth age 24 and under. (2008-2012)
http://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/youth-and-firearms
http://www.lifesavingsociety.com/media/226591/2015drowningreport_web.pdf
Darnit. Apples and oranges. I suspect the firearms report plumped it's numbers by including youth up to age 24; this would then include some suicides. Nevertheless, I was right about vehicles. They are way more dangerous than water, firearms, or aspartame.0 -
My point to posting the link was to simply show that the debate on Diet Soda still exists (whether you want to believe that or not...many people still question it). It is not a closed case. That is all I was trying to show. I'm not trying to prove it's harmful...I'm not trying to prove its safe...I'm just showing that it is not a closed case as many of you say it is.
If "people talking about it" is your definition of the debate still existing, I guess there's still a debate about the shape of the planet.9 -
My point to posting the link was to simply show that the debate on Diet Soda still exists (whether you want to believe that or not...many people still question it). It is not a closed case. That is all I was trying to show. I'm not trying to prove it's harmful...I'm not trying to prove its safe...I'm just showing that it is not a closed case as many of you say it is.
The debate still exists because of fearmongering and the fact that there are people who don't understand (or choose to ignore) science.5 -
My point to posting the link was to simply show that the debate on Diet Soda still exists (whether you want to believe that or not...many people still question it). It is not a closed case. That is all I was trying to show. I'm not trying to prove it's harmful...I'm not trying to prove its safe...I'm just showing that it is not a closed case as many of you say it is.
Okay. Well. Can you give an example of something that is a closed case then based on that definition? If not then what you are saying really doesn't have any meaning to it because if everything is an "open case" then the phrase "open case" doesn't actually mean anything.
I'm pretty sure I, nor anyone else on this thread, ever made the claim that no one on this planet believes that aspartame is dangerous. I mean you believe that so, yeah, clearly some people do. I guess I just don't see what point you are trying to make.2 -
My point to posting the link was to simply show that the debate on Diet Soda still exists (whether you want to believe that or not...many people still question it). It is not a closed case. That is all I was trying to show. I'm not trying to prove it's harmful...I'm not trying to prove its safe...I'm just showing that it is not a closed case as many of you say it is.
The debate still exists because the facts of the matter aren't scary enough. Nothing these days is important unless we worship it (toxin-clearing flushes and whatnot) or are terrified of it (artificial sweeteners and Subway yoga mat rolls).2 -
My point to posting the link was to simply show that the debate on Diet Soda still exists (whether you want to believe that or not...many people still question it). It is not a closed case. That is all I was trying to show. I'm not trying to prove it's harmful...I'm not trying to prove its safe...I'm just showing that it is not a closed case as many of you say it is.
There is no issue, however ridiculous, on which there are not people who will argue the other side.
Thus, that doesn't seem all that important to me, or mean the dispute is a legitimate one. Some think the pyramids were built by aliens. I cannot 100% prove that aliens did not build the pyramids. That does not make the claim that aliens built the pyramids a defensible one.3 -
This thread, and all the others like it, make me sad that so many people lack basic reading comprehension, or a desire to read and comprehend rather than just jumping to share their opinion - as well as lacking basic critical thinking skills and a fundamental understanding of how science works.
7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions