except science doesn't call itself faith, rokkit. it asks for complete answers...with not reliance on faith. it often criticzes faith. i'm not holding science to a higher standard than it holds itself. if these guys want to say they're measuring this all on subjective crap, then please let them do it.
Well then you are not reading it right. It said it DID NOT KNOW what cues the women picked up on to make the determination of what men liked kids. Do you really think that with all our biology/ animal instincts this is an impossibility? It looks to me what you are scared of is the understanding that we truly belong to the animal kingdom.
no. i'm scared of pigeon-holing people because of what they look like. i'm flabbergasted at the notion that because a person looks a certain way, he's destined to act a certain way. i do not believe that to be true. are you comfortable with those conclusions? and yeah..women clearly do such an excellent job at picking fathers.
But that's not what it is saying. It is saying that a person is looking a certain way becuase he feels a certain way. That's all.
and that's nuts!!!!! i look a certain way because i was born a certain way. not because i feel a certain way. black people don't feel a certain way because of the color of their skin. people with strong jawlines don't dislike children. people with smiling happy faces aren't model parents.
Just becuase you like kids it doesn't mean you are a model parent. There is nothing in the study about being model parents. And agian, women being attracted to men with strong jaw-lines is a different subject from them being able to tell if they like kids. Liking kids is a feeling, and feelings come and go. They are able to pick up on a man's current mood about mating. A man will subconsciously project his current emotion about mating to women. That sounds very reasonable.
And you, faith, are criticizing science. Faith believes it has the answers to some of the greatests questions about life itself. In any case, I'm not talking about the actual concepts of science or faith here and how they relate to each other...I'm talking about how adamant you are in attacking a simple study and a relatively minor theory. There are all sorts of implications, beyond just 'what you look like must mean this is how you act', which is where you are cornering it. I'm not even saying I agree with it, I just see it as a little interesting story. I'm not sure exactly what it is you are afraid of here.
max, i think what rokkit is getting at is that you seem to be unable or unwilling to accept abstraction outside areas of faith. it is curious to me as well that you refuse to see any nuance in this thread and want so badly to make this a black or white conversation.
