The evidence against religon won with just one argument until...

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

The fact that you see no need for someone to do anything does not equate to proof that no-one did anything.

As you should by now be well aware PDN, science does not offer "proof" of anything.

It is impossible to prove that God isn't constantly altering the very nature of reality as we type.

It is impossible to prove that the universe wasn't started 5 minutes ago and that everything we remember happening was created in our brains by God.

It is impossible prove that God talks to you when you pray, or that the Bible is inspired by God.

In fact it is impossible to prove that I am not, at the very moment, God himself (in a Morgan Freeman kinda way).

Science does not deal in proof. It deals in evidence and what is likely or supported.

There is no evidence ever discovered that any intelligence has ever done anything to effect or alter the natural path of the universe.

There is no theory ever devised that requires interaction by an intelligence to ensure that some model of the universe accurately predicts reality.

PDN wrote:

Classic leap of logic. The first sentence is a scientific theory supported by evidence. The second is your supposition unsupported by any evidence.

Evidence?

What would be the evidence that God didn't create the Earth? What could that evidence possibly be? Please enlighten me :rolleyes:

Have you ever heard the phrase that if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck ....

If the Earth looks from all evidence as if it was formed from a natural process what possible reason is there to believe God created it?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Well because Bronze Age people weren't idiots. They had engineering and maths, complex language and poetry

So do we, yet clearly people like Captain Capslock remain idiots...besides, does that actually apply to the Israelites?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

:rolleyes:

Come on...there are penty of real placneames used in scripture...I'll need to reply yo your other point (rest of that psot) later, it looks substantial...

Not that many in Genesis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

So do we, yet clearly people like Captain Capslock remain idiots...besides, does that actually apply to the Israelites?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well I would imagine that if God decided to reveal the details of how he formed the universe he wouldn't do it to JC

I added a bit to my original post that you probably missed, so I'll say it again here -

They are also supposed to have a perfect intelligence explaining this to them. The idea that this intelligence would explain it to them in a way that they wouldn't understand makes little sense.

Or that this perfect intelligence would pick either people or a media form he knew would not end up being properly recorded, makes little sense.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

No one "made" it happen, it happened due to natural forces. Stars form. Stars explode. Planets form from the remains of these explosions. At no point is there any evidence (or need) for someone to do anything.

The fact that you see no need for someone to do anything does not equate to proof that no-one did anything. I would think that is a very rudimentary point of logic.

Science tells us that the Earth was created by the remains of an exploded star imploding under gravitational pull of the gas and rock. God didn't create the Earth.

Classic leap of logic. The first sentence is a scientific theory supported by evidence. The second is your supposition unsupported by any evidence.

To start there was no first human couple. The ancestry of homo-sepians can be traced back to when humans didn't exist.

If you accept the theory of evolution then you have to draw a line somewhere. An ape-ancestor was not a human being. I am a human being. Somewhere along the line someone, or even 2 someones, were the first creatures to cross that dividing line between non-human and human. That would constitute the first human man, or even the first couple.

Again this is simple logic. At one time all couples were non-human. Now we have human couples. That means that somewhere, at some time, there must have been a first human couple.

Secondly what is a "perfect local environment"?

A location which was perfectly adopted to human life - as distinct from trying to assert that the entire world was ideal for human existence.

Humans were not placed on this planet. We evolved on this planet.

No, that simply addresses how they were placed. You have no evidence for your assertion that they were not placed. And, before you ask me what evidence I have that they were placed, I don't need to present any. The burden of proof is on you because you were the one who claimed that science tells us that Tigay's statements were untrue. So far you have presented no proof or evidence as to how science tells us that.

PDN

I'm off to Wicklow for a few days. Apparently no internet available at the Conference Centre - so I'll have to bow out of this interesting discussion. No doubt I will return to find solid arguments bolstered by the best evidence that creation science can offer.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Well I would imagine that if God decided to reveal the details of how he formed the universe he wouldn't do it to JC

Why not? You and I would choose the clearest mind to work with, but God might well see things differently from us.

Wicknight wrote:

I added a bit to my original post that you probably missed, so I'll say it again here -

They are also supposed to have a perfect intelligence explaining this to them. The idea that this intelligence would explain it to them in a way that they wouldn't understand makes little sense.

That assumes a kind of "sit down and go through it step by step until you're sure they understand". Again, why would you assume this, other than that it is what you would do?

Wicknight wrote:

Or that this perfect intelligence would pick either people or a media form he knew would not end up being properly recorded, makes little sense.

And that assumes that the proper result is a factual recording of history, which again is just an assumption. When Yeats wrote "Lissadell", did he mention the placement of the main stairs? The name of the family? The best time of day to find them at home? No? But surely that would be important to a visitor to Lissadell?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

If you accept the theory of evolution then you have to draw a line somewhere.

Well that is one of the points of evolution, there is no "line"

A non-human did not give birth a human. It is not black and white, it is a long shade of gray. How humans classify a homo-sepian is arbitrary. Nature itself makes no such distinction.

This would be much clearer is any of the great apes that were very close to humans were still around. There is evidence that homo-neanderthals were quite intelligent and had language and mated with humans.

If we as a society were confronted with this we would no doubt have to re-evaluate the idea that we have (propagated mostly by religion) that we are special animals distinct from all others.

Think of it like this, if you are climbing a hill at what point do you say we are on the hill and what point do you say we are not on the hill. Its easy to pick some where where you you are certain you are on the hill (the top say) or some where were are you are not (4 miles away), but while you are walking up the hill can you say "here I'm not, one step more I am"

PDN wrote:

That would constitute the first human man, or even the first couple.

Again, that is the point.

Evolution tells us it doesn't work like that. So follow on theological theories that work on the assumption that it does are deeply flawed.

PDN wrote:

A location which was perfectly adopted to human life - as distinct from trying to assert that the entire world was ideal for human existence.

Yes but what do you mean "perfectly adopted to human life"

PDN wrote:

No, that simply addresses how they were placed. You have no evidence for your assertion that they were not placed.

I have tons of evidence in the fossil record that they were not placed

PDN wrote:

The burden of proof is on you because you were the one who claimed that science tells us that Tigay's statements were untrue.

Well normally its the other way around PDN. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I am God. Prove to me I'm not.

I would imagine most people here would instead say "Prove you are"

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Why not? You and I would choose the clearest mind to work with, but God might well see things differently from us.

Well if God knew he was actually a genius that would obviously be different.

Your argument seems to be that it is entirely plausible that God picked idiots to record his description of the creation of the universe, and as such these idiots messed up when they tried to explain this to others.

I find that unlikely given the purpose of the Bible was to convey to people his instructions.

Scofflaw wrote:

That assumes a kind of "sit down and go through it step by step until you're sure they understand". Again, why would you assume this, other than that it is what you would do?

Well because as I said the purpose of the Bible is supposed to be clear.

Scofflaw wrote:

And that assumes that the proper result is a factual recording of history, which again is just an assumption.

Its not an assumption. It says in the Bible that the purpose of the Bible is to make people wise and enlighten them.

It seems rather illogical that God would choose to do this by lying to them.

The purpose of Genesis is as a history of how the Hebrews came to exist and the relationship they have with God.

If this history is not real then it questions the authority of the relationship the priests claimed to have with God.

Sometimes I think people forget this. The Bible doesn't have Genesis in it just for the fun of it. It is a mark of authority for what follows.

Scofflaw wrote:

When Yeats wrote "Lissadell", did he mention the placement of the main stairs? The name of the family? The best time of day to find them at home? No? But surely that would be important to a visitor to Lissadell?

I haven't read the poem, but did Yeats say the stairs were some where where they weren't?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Well if God knew he was actually a genius that would obviously be different.

Your argument seems to be that it is entirely plausible that God picked idiots to record his description of the creation of the universe, and as such these idiots messed up when they tried to explain this to others.

I find that unlikely given the purpose of the Bible was to convey to people his instructions.

Well because as I said the purpose of the Bible is supposed to be clear.

Its not an assumption. It says in the Bible that the purpose of the Bible is to make people wise and enlighten them.

It seems rather illogical that God would choose to do this by lying to them.

The purpose of Genesis is as a history of how the Hebrews came to exist and the relationship they have with God.

If this history is not real then it questions the authority of the relationship the priests claimed to have with God.

Sometimes I think people forget this. The Bible doesn't have Genesis in it just for the fun of it. It is a mark of authority for what follows.

I think the whole problem here can be summed up by this: "it says in the Bible that the purpose of the Bible is to make people wise and enlighten them. "

Now, what does "make people wise and enlighten them" mean? Is there a single definition of wisdom? Enlightenment? Are either of those generally taken to mean the same as "factually informed"?

Wicknight wrote:

I haven't read the poem, but did Yeats say the stairs were some where where they weren't?

No, he didn't even mention the stairs, or the name of the family. He also described one of the daughters of the house as a gazelle. He does refer to the windows:

"The light of evening, Lissadell,
Great windows opening to the South."

but we don't know whether they were sash or French windows, from the description, although French seems more probable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Are either of those generally taken to mean the same as "factually informed"?

One would think so. Its kinda hard to be enlightened if you are being mislead. As JC

Scofflaw wrote:

No, he didn't even mention the stairs, or the name of the family.

Thats kinda my point.

If the Bible didn't mention the Creation one might argue that the details are not important. But since the creation is mentioned it seems logical to conclude that it is being mentioned accurately, to give authority to the piece.

Scofflaw wrote:

He does refer to the windows:

"The light of evening, Lissadell,
Great windows opening to the South."

but we don't know whether they were sash or French windows, from the description, although French seems more probable.

How likely do you think it is that the windows actually opened to the North but Yeats said they open to the South for an unknown purpose?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

One would think so. Its kinda hard to be enlightened if you are being mislead. Ask JC

No, it's just hard to be well-informed if you're misinformed. It is perfectly possible to be both well-informed and unwise, so the two are clearly different.

Wicknight wrote:

Thats kinda my point.

If the Bible didn't mention the Creation one might argue that the details are not important. But since the creation is mentioned it seems logical to conclude that it is being mentioned accurately, to give authority to the piece.

Clearly the windows are important in Yeats' poem, but not sufficiently to give an accurate description of them. Indeed, the girls are more important, yet from all the description we are given, they could be any reasonably attractive pair of sisters.

Wicknight wrote:

How likely do you think it is that the windows actually opened to the North but Yeats said they open to the South for an unknown purpose?

Well, the windows on the South front of Lissadell are actually bow windows, so even if the south front of the house points due south, the windows themselves don't. The description is therefore not actually accurate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

No, it's just hard to be well-informed if you're misinformed. It is perfectly possible to be both well-informed and unwise, so the two are clearly different.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Isn't being misinformed and mislead the same thing?

Scofflaw wrote:

Clearly the windows are important in Yeats' poem, but not sufficiently to give an accurate description of them.

But he doesn't give an inaccurate description of them.

Genesis is inaccurate. Its not just unimportant detail being left out, its incorrect detail being put in.

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, the windows on the South front of Lissadell are actually bow windows, so even if the south front of the house points due south, the windows themselves don't. The description is therefore not actually accurate.

I'm afraid I'm not quite up on my window design so I don't actually know what a bow window is.

The point is is Yeats misleading the reader to the actual state of the house, and if so for what purpose?

Fanny Cradock

stevejazzx wrote:

The christians who believe in an old earth cannot in any way reconcile that with their bible suffice to say that their bible is a one big methaphor.

Phew! Lucky I read your diktat on what I can believe. Though you must understand I'm a little shocked to find out that I can now only believe the above.

I'm still waiting for you to torpedo the Christian faith as your title promised.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Isn't being misinformed and mislead the same thing?

Pretty much, butneither are the same as being unwise.

Wicknight wrote:

But he doesn't give an inaccurate description of them.

Genesis is inaccurate. Its not just unimportant detail being left out, its incorrect detail being put in.

I'm afraid I'm not quite up on my window design so I don't actually know what a bow window is.

The point is is Yeats misleading the reader to the actual state of the house, and if so for what purpose?

A rounded front, with the windows set on the curves. If the bow is facing due south the windows will therefore face SSW/SW and SSE/SE, whereas Yeats describes them as facing South. Yeats has chosen inaccuracy for brevity - which may seem acceptable, unless one needed to use his poem to determine the cardinal points of the compass a couple of thousand years later. And of course neither of the girls is actually a gazelle - clearly Yeats is either hopelessly inaccurate or metaphorical here, although we presume he doesn't mean she is on all fours, or eating leaves.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

A rounded front, with the windows set on the curves. If the bow is facing due south the windows will therefore face SSW/SW and SSE/SE, whereas Yeats describes them as facing South.

Well I imagine the window itself faces south, irrespective of the individual panes of glass in the window.

If you are equating this to Genesis I'm failing to see the similarities. Genesis doesn't sort of kinda get it right leaving out a few details (such as the individual panes of glass) which aren't relevant.

Its gets it completely wrong.

It is far more like saying that the window was on the North side of the house. Or saying the house is actually a boat.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Well I imagine the window itself faces south, irrespective of the individual panes of glass in the window.

If you are equating this to Genesis I'm failing to see the similarities. Genesis doesn't sort of kinda get it right leaving out a few details (such as the individual panes of glass) which aren't relevant.

Its gets it completely wrong.

It is far more like saying that the window was on the North side of the house. Or saying the house is actually a boat.

Well, no - what I'm actually saying is that it's completely inappropriate to try and treat poetry as a factual record of anything. Poetry doesn't try to describe reality through fact, but through allusion and metaphor.

Poetically, one might well refer to the house as a boat, or describe windows that once faced south as now facing north. One is not, in that case, really talking about windows, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Phew! Lucky I read your diktat on what I can believe. Though you must understand I'm a little shocked to find out that I can now only believe the above.

I'm still waiting for you to torpedo the Christian faith as your title promised.

Ah Fanny, you're a wondeful poster...I think almost always confrontational with me..you know I'm begining to have serious doubts that you like me:)
Firstly the sentence you quoted has nothing to do with what I say you can believe..I mean that must be wishful thinking on your behalf because I didn't dictate a belief system to anyone so I really don't know what you're on about..I imagine you missed the point...
Now you should re-read my original post and factor in the tongue and cheek aspect and the mildly ironic ending and then perhaps you wouldn't find yourself waiting around for torpeodoing... it is still my opinion however, as was the central idea of the original post, that what we now know about the age of the universe is sufficient enough evidence to make one ponder the biblical accounts of creation...

Son Goku

PDN wrote:

If you accept the theory of evolution then you have to draw a line somewhere. An ape-ancestor was not a human being. I am a human being. Somewhere along the line someone, or even 2 someones, were the first creatures to cross that dividing line between non-human and human. That would constitute the first human man, or even the first couple.

Again this is simple logic. At one time all couples were non-human. Now we have human couples. That means that somewhere, at some time, there must have been a first human couple.

I can understand how this would appear to be the case, but surprisingly enough it isn't due to a few subtleties.
First of all, take what you and I call a human being. On a genetic level, in evolutionary biology, it's very difficult to decide what exactly counts as a human being or not. Obviously there are things which are definitely human and things which definitely are not. However it is difficult to asses what genetic qualities mark a biological system as having crossed the line from non-human to human. This is the problem of genotype versus phenotype and since evolution is a subtle interplay between both levels you can't really mark out a species until well after its formative stages.
The closest you could get is perhaps a first human community.

pH

Son Goku wrote:

The closest you could get is perhaps a first human community.

The man posts much sense

There is evidence of tool use (animal butchery) as far back as 2.5 million years ago

195,000 years ago we have the first Homo Sapiens fossils

mitochondrial eve is dated to 150,000 years ago

These is some evidence that around 74,000 years ago the population was bottlenecked down to around 2,000 - but even using this as the smallest population there is a continuous breeding population of humans, and no evidence whatsoever for a dramatic intervention by God which either enlarged the cranium or changed the pelvis dramatically to cause painful childbirth ...

[snip] Right - I was continuing the above but I deleted the rest of this post (any interested in human evolution can read about it here) because I can't believe that PDN or indeed anyone can treat Genesis 3:16 as 'literal truth' coming 2 verses after the bit where God punished a talking snake by making him spend his days crawling on his stomach.

Genesis 3:14 wrote:

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

Fanny Cradock

stevejazzx wrote:

Ah Fanny, you're a wondeful poster...I think almost always confrontational with me..you know I'm begining to have serious doubts that you like me:)
Firstly the sentence you quoted has nothing to do with what I say you can believe..I mean that must be wishful thinking on your behalf because I didn't dictate a belief system to anyone so I really don't know what you're on about..I imagine you missed the point...
Now you should re-read my original post and factor in the tongue and cheek aspect and the mildly ironic ending and then perhaps you wouldn't find yourself waiting around for torpeodoing... it is still my opinion however, as was the central idea of the original post, that what we now know about the age of the universe is sufficient enough evidence to make one ponder the biblical accounts of creation...

Confrontational! Me? That's the biggest load of...

Just kidding.

As for me not liking you. I've got news: I love you Steve. I think I always have!

Anywho, bad jokes aside. As far as I know I've only replied to you twice in this thread. The first time I ended with a jibe - no malice was intended. The second time I will admit that my post was positively oozing with sarcasm. Again, ill will was not my intention. Rather, in a round about way, I was trying to explain that I can happy look upon Genesis as a metaphorical truth that is in no conflict with my understanding of the creation of the universe, which, incidentally, I suspect is very much the same as your own.

stevejazzx

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Confrontational! Me? That's the biggest load of...

Just kidding.

As for me not liking you. I've got news: I love you Steve. I think I always have!

Anywho, bad jokes aside. As far as I know I've only replied to you twice in this thread. The first time I ended with a jibe - no malice was intended. The second time I will admit that my post was positively oozing with sarcasm. Again, ill will was not my intention. Rather, in a round about way, I was trying to explain that I can happy look upon Genesis as a metaphorical truth that is in no conflict with my understanding of the creation of the universe, which, incidentally, I suspect is very much the same as your own.

Well I'm glad to know that there is no abiding issue between us. On your last point I can only say that I find it very hard how anyone could resolve biblical stories with anything that we currently understand about the universe and the nature of our existence.

Fanny Cradock

stevejazzx wrote:

Well I'm glad to know that there is no abiding issue between us. On your last point I can only say that I find it very hard how anyone could resolve biblical stories with anything that we currently understand about the universe and the nature of our existence.

Indeed. But that would seem to be your problem (that's not an insult, btw), and not that of a Christian who reconcile scientific knowledge with their faith in God. It's an aside, but I don't subscribe to the notion vociferously upheld by some people (on both sides) that faith and science are on a collision course.

Son Goku

Fanny Cradock wrote:

It's an aside, but I don't subscribe to the notion vociferously upheld by some people (on both sides) that faith and science are on a collision course.

Since it's slightly on-topic, I was just wondering how do you approach the "prime mover" problem? The problem is the fact that although there is no philosophical conflict between science and the existence of a God, in order for this God to match what science says, or fit in with science in a thematic sense (whatever that means) it must be an abstract prime mover deity. As opposed to the very personal Christian God.

Some people say they find it difficult to reconcile a God who, like watchmaker, sets up intellectually a mechanical self-contained universe and the "right by your side" essence of the God of the bible.

Not to say this is an actual problem, but what is your answer to it?

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

I can understand how this would appear to be the case, but surprisingly enough it isn't due to a few subtleties.
First of all, take what you and I call a human being. On a genetic level, in evolutionary biology, it's very difficult to decide what exactly counts as a human being or not. Obviously there are things which are definitely human and things which definitely are not. However it is difficult to asses what genetic qualities mark a biological system as having crossed the line from non-human to human. This is the problem of genotype versus phenotype and since evolution is a subtle interplay between both levels you can't really mark out a species until well after its formative stages.

Also, some of the genetic evidence suggests we went on interbreeding with chimpanzees for a good few hundred thousand years...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

I can't believe that PDN or indeed anyone can treat Genesis 3:16 as 'literal truth' coming 2 verses after the bit where God punished a talking snake by making him spend his days crawling on his stomach.

Presumably, it was actually a talking lizard.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Myksyk wrote:

Absolute mind-numbing nonsense.

Thank you for that well-thought out and reasoned response. I always find it interesting when people use phrases such as "mind-numbing" just because somebody else holds different beliefs.

I guess narrow minds are easily numbed.

Personally, while I frequently disagree with others' beliefs, I tend to be a tolerant kind of chap so there's no danger of my mind being numbed.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

As I've pointed out a few times James Barr is a Professor of Hebrew.

As were three of the scholars I cited. Remember? Three of the guys that you dismissed as practitioners of a "made up subject" because they were also theologians. But hang on a minute - James Barr is also a theologian!

So, if a theologian/professor of Hebrew makes a statement of which Wicknight approves, then he is deemed worthy of being cited as an authority because he is a professor of Hebrew. However, if 3 theologians/professors of Hebrew reach a conclusion different from Wicknight, then their conclusions can safely be dismissed because they are theologians.

I am so delighted to be able to post in such a bastion of clear-sighted logic and rationality. I am unworthy of such a privilege.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

As you should by now be well aware PDN, science does not offer "proof" of anything.

It is impossible to prove that God isn't constantly altering the very nature of reality as we type.

It is impossible to prove that the universe wasn't started 5 minutes ago and that everything we remember happening was created in our brains by God.

It is impossible prove that God talks to you when you pray, or that the Bible is inspired by God.

In fact it is impossible to prove that I am not, at the very moment, God himself (in a Morgan Freeman kinda way).

Science does not deal in proof. It deals in evidence and what is likely or supported.

There is no evidence ever discovered that any intelligence has ever done anything to effect or alter the natural path of the universe.

There is no theory ever devised that requires interaction by an intelligence to ensure that some model of the universe accurately predicts reality.



Evidence?

What would be the evidence that God didn't create the Earth? What could that evidence possibly be? Please enlighten me :rolleyes:

Have you ever heard the phrase that if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck ....

If the Earth looks from all evidence as if it was formed from a natural process what possible reason is there to believe God created it?

Whoa! You're at it again - dancing around to evade the consequences of your own statements. Let's recap what has happened so far.

1. I quoted Tigay, not because I agree with him, but in response to your request for me to provide evidence that there are both liberal and evangelical biblical scholars who, on the basis of evidence, believe the Genesis creation accounts to be intended as metaphorical rather than scientifically accurate. This was in response to your erroneous statement that an academic consensus existed on the matter.

2. You took exception to Tigay's statement, among other things, that one of the true intentions of the author(s) of Genesis was the truth that God created the earth. Your response to this was "the problem of course is that science tells us that that isn't true."

3. Since you have now made the claim that "science tells us" that God did not make the earth, I am entitled to ask you for proof or evidence. Your argument so far appears to be that there is no evidence that God did create the earth.

4. Even a blind half-wit on drugs should be able to grasp the difference between "There is no proof or evidence that X is true" and "There is proof or evidence that X is not true." All the waffling and eye-rolling icons in the world will not mask that essential distinction.

I personally do not believe that there is definitive evidence that God did not create the earth. Other atheist posters have, in other threads, have indicated that such evidence does not exist. You, however, have made the extraordinary claim that "science tells us" (implying evidence) that God did not make the earth.

Earlier in this thread you asked me to produce evidence to support a claim I made. I provided you with evidence. Therefore I will ask you again. What evidence or proof can you produce to support your claim that "science tells us" that God did not make the earth?

PDN

pH wrote:

There is evidence of tool use (animal butchery) as far back as 2.5 million years ago

Could I suggest you read Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee? Tool use is not an exclusively human trait.