Please explain the evils of diet coke. (Page 2)

Lots of good points given here. One thing I have read repeatedly in articles (which my doctor confirmed) is that the phosphoric acid in carbonated cola drinks eats away at the calcium in your bones. Thus breaks are easier.

I recently read that 3 or more cans of carbonated cola and diet cola a day significantly affected bone mass. Although it is obviously more of an issue for women, who are susceptible to osteoporosis,  I'd still say drinking three liters can't be good for anyone.

Complete nonsense.  Please use a source better than Google. 

I'm assuming your response is to my post.

What evidence do you want me to provide?  I made no claims.  I merely pointed out that yours are baseless.  Again, you cite as a source an article rather than scientific literature.  Google all you want.  It doesn't further the point you're trying to make.

Honestly though, I got 2 paragraphs into the article you linked.  I've heard the same argument before and don't need it rehashed.  Things that are carcinogens at 10000X the intake any human could possibly consume aren't realistic threats to cause cancer in humans.  Do you avoid water too?  Drink 10 gallons a day and see how you feel.  Better yet, drink 1000 gallons and see.

Feel free to avoid it if you'd like.  Just expect that claims you make that aren't supported by objective evidence to be called out.

Refuting a claim is not a claim.  This is like you asking me to provide evidence the Easter Bunny isn't real.

I don't find my response aggressive.  You made an absolute claim that has been made by many others over the years and dont' have evidenced to support that.  A single rat study that flies in the face of all the other available literature isn't nearly the evidence you need to make that sort of claim.  Even the article you cite states that it "may" be a carcinogen.  You add that to the existing body of literature concerning aspartame, and it doesn't mean much.

This is not a new argument, and you're not the first to believe what you do.  You're free to do whatever you'd like, but I'll continue to give people evidence based opinions so that they can make up their own minds.

I disagree here.  I believe that you can prove a negative correlation but you cannot disprove a negative absolute.  Your camera and basket only proves that the Easter Bunny was not in your kitchen on Easter morning.  It does not disprove his existence.  What if the camera gets knocked over and suddenly the basket is full.  That wouldn't prove the existence of the Easter Bunny any more than the existence of aliens or Santa Claus.  All it proves is something knocked over the camera and the basket is now filled.  Frankly it doesn't even prove that the person or object that knocked over the camera filled the basket.  Just my .02 for mental gymnastics.

define reasonable...

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bigfoot_risks_extinction_says_Canad_05...

I enjoy the circular arguments it keeps me busy instead of working. I do agree that you can gather enough evidence to remove doubt from all but the most insane people.  I don't even disagree with you.  I feel better since I stopped drinking soda but it might be all in my head.  I really won't be doing scholarly research on the topic but hey I like debate.

The answer is no.  You can make statistically significant inferences from the data over a population, but you don't prove anything.

If you read your own post, you're saying the same thing and contradicting yourself in the process.

You keep saying "prove".  Despite your protestations to the contrary, you don't prove anything with studies.  You can draw conclusions, make inferences, etc. as I stated.  What I said makes perfect sense despite your not understanding it.

Yes, I'm the one arguing semantics.  Let's reread the diatribe you just posted.

The ironic thing is that part of your current argument speaks against your original point.  You just don't know it.