By now many of you are probably familiar with the Aspartame scare. There are so many sites and books out there about the dangers of the additive (which experts claim is actually an addictive drug), but for all that fuss, it makes you wonder why it’s still in your drink.

Well, I’m not here to talk about the actual side-effects, or preach about why it should be avoided. In case you want to learn more on what they say Aspartame can do to you, you can check out the 92 Side-effects, which surprisingly includes “death”.

So what’s this really about? It’s about the miserable cycle that keeps us in fear of such a sweet taste.

When companies come up with products, with such chemicals (fluoride being among them btw), we buy and get used to using them. Like when I first heard about the supposed dangers of fluoride, I instantly thought — it can’t be that bad. After all everyone I know brushes his or her teeth at least twice a day.  But what about the statistics? That point-something-something percent that in fact, did experience these side-effects? What if I wake up one morning and realize that I fit nicely into those statistics?

So we don’t do anything until it’s too late. And the media doesn’t do anything till it’s too late. Correction, the media is involved, but only to a certain extent. And the companies, despite naggings, will not do anything — perhaps until something major happens. While this isn’t a revolt, I just think it’s pretty strange.

I could sum it up in this make-believe statement from Diet Cola Drinker X, “Yeah, I heard there was something up with this. But it can’t be that bad, can it? If it were, the government would tell me, and anyways I’ll worry about that if something happens.”

To which the government replies, “We’ll worry about that if something happens.”

I think governments should settle it once and for all. We shouldn’t have to pick whatever we want to believe on something like this.

Technorati tags: health, aspartame, side effects, diet cola, toxins, poison

I’m an avid reader of TIME magazine, and a few months ago, I realized something. It seems like they’ve taken an active stance in this age-old debate about God, science, and the origin of the universe. Before I go any further, I state this just to set it straight—I’m a firm believer in Creation and in God. And I will not deny the purpose of this entry. I do hope that doesn’t stop many of you from reading on.

In one of TIME.com’s own blogs by a certain Michael Lemonick, the topic of discussion has gone from the Origin of Life to the Big Bang, and while I wouldn’t dare pass myself off as an expert, I do have a reaction to one of Lemonick’s arguments, one that I’ve heard and read already before.

But as I’ve often said, lightning was once an argument for the existence of God(s), until we figured out the real cause. It may be that THIS time we’ve come to the final impasse, and will have to invoke God as the cause. But I prefer to wait and see what the smartest theoretical physicists in the world can do with the problem first. They’re on the case.

I’d also like to quote a Jim Hill, commenter on the same blog:

If research, as expected, continues to turn up nothing for the foreseeable future, then your allegation becomes a matter of BELIEF or FAITH, because you have no data to back up your allegation. I could allege just as easily that God created life at some point, which becomes my BELIEF and FAITH. Because you have no data to contradict me, we have a real standoff.

Well here’s what I think. I’m not saying that the studies on the Earth and animals, but there’s something funny about the picture I saw from those two quotes alone. I noticed that pattern (or should I say, habit) from those who unshakably stand by science AND against the belief in God. I suppose it’s difficult not to invoke our ignorant past like that. Let me help out a bit—they arrested Galileo for saying the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe, they refused to believe Columbus when he said the Earth is round. It’s always been the church against science. One disproves, or ridicules, the other.

Basically, we always think that it’s those who believe in Creation that are so close-minded. Well, what I find odd is that those who believe in science seem to be so quick to accept what scientists say, as long as they present enough scientific jargon to back it up. For instance, the infamous Theory of Evolution. Many believe that this is the consensus—that every self-respecting scientist should believe this, as it is the only theory that makes any sense at all. In fact, it’s often regarded as fact.

But what most people don’t know is that many scientists (highly credible ones) believe Evolution to be a “fairy tale”, or something either highly improbable or plain impossible. Of all the tens of thousands of mutations known to man, even those that Evolutionists themselves use to defend the Darwinian point of view, NONE of them are positive. Meaning, not a single one of them (and I invite everyone to test this) improved the quality or efficiency of the genetic code. So how could they say that humans, being as efficient and productive as we are now, evolved from single-celled organisms?

And yet, people so readily believe the Evolution theory as if it were the only thing that made sense. In fact, Creation satisfies far more logical and scientific rules than Evolution does.

So this is what I think, agreeing with what Mr. Hill says—people believe not what makes more sense, they believe what they want to believe. Scientists are human too, despite assumptions that they seem to be infallible and immune to biases, so it’s self-destructive to believe that what they say (or what most of them choose to believe) is the absolute truth.

So if the only real argument that they can give against Creation is that they’d rather not just “throw their hands in the air” credit things to God, then they shouldn’t go around waving it like a sword. It’s a defense, not an offense, and does absolutely nothing to change my mind. Creation, without a doubt, makes more sense than Evolution.

Technorati tags: creation, evolution, darwinism, charles darwin, religion, faith, belief, time, science