Creationism vs. Evolution

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Did I ever say that I fully subscribe to the Bible's Morals? I follow the ten commandments and the word of the Prince of Peace and that's about it. I am not even all that good with following that.

--Ocram

[Zukunftstraume 220]

Neighbour connection will lead you to another flat floating region and so on, so on.....i told you, it is a never ending thread...

Seriously, i'm gonna go play now, before this thread leads to a Religious Harrasement...which i'm not gonna be part of that...

Some admin should pay attention to this.

I'm sure half the moderators wish this thread would just die once and for all because of the constant eye they have to keep on this topic. I'm sure if I scroll through all the pages we'll find massive flame wars (or the remains of them post-mod)

[Cobraroll 138]

As a response to the original question of the topic, I'd like to say this:

You need to study life and its components to determine whether or not evolution is true. It's a question asked within the field of life (biology), and its answer cannot be found elsewhere. Arguments in the fields of literature, economics and engineering have no real merit here. If you want to find out whether or not life evolved, you have to study life itself.

Now, plenty of people have actually done that. They're called biologists. Educated people who know the basic rules and conditions of life. These are the people with credentials to comment on the validity of evolution. You'd ask a philosopher about morale, an engineer about building safety, or a doctor about human health. You'd ask the people with sufficent knowledge about the subject at hand. They have studied it for years, they know the ABC of their field, and don't only know the answer to the questions you ask, but why the answer is what it is.

Now, if you ask biologists about whether or not evolution occurs, there is near unanimous agreement that yes, the theory holds true. There are no apparent holes in the reasoning. It connects beautifully to other fields of science. It's consistent with the rest of biology. Just as well as an astronomer can know that the Earth revolves around the sun, and why (even though to the uneducated, the opposite certainly seems to be the case!), a biologist can know why the theory of evolution says what it does. It's easy enough for laymen to spot what they think are inconsistencies ("duh, the sun comes up in the east and goes down in the west, just look at it!"), but the underlying theory has a way to explain those apparent inconsistencies, backed up by hard princples and years (or even centuries) of study. Unfortunately, those explanations often require a bit more background knowledge than most people would bother to gather, so there will always be a fair few who looks at them and say "It's still wrong", simply because they don't understand the underlying principles, or because it clashes with their favourite worldview.

The same goes for most conspiracy theories. Yes, there are perfectly good reasons why what you saw is what happened (as an engineering student, I can post pages and pages about the WTC, for instance), but understanding those reasons require a lot of time and dedication to often apparently insignificant details (for instance, the termal properties of steel, or the mathematics of beam deflection). Instead of admitting that you don't know, it's way more tempting to believe the simplest possible explanation, which doesn't require you to study for hours. If you roll with "God did it", you can claim to understand the complicated question, and laugh at all the "dumb" people who don't (but who actually know way more about it). Or you can believe them to be "agents of evil", that they too have come to the same "logical" explanation as you, but they are hiding the truth because (fill in reason. You WILL come up with something if you try). Siding with the conspiracy allows you to believe you're right, without having to change your worldview.

It's tempting to go for the "all-in-one-package" (where everything can be boiled down to "God", "evil government", "Jewish conspiracy" or something equally ridiculous), but the truth is usually found buried beneath boring facts. Understand the facts, and you'll understand the question. Then you can find the answer.

EDIT: Why the heck is this topic in "Current Events"? Unless you're really into Last-Thursday-ism, the events that brought forth life as we know it can hardly be considered "current". Wouldn't General Off-topic be better?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Grandpa? Yes true. Both kids alive and kicking. Some grand-nieces and nephews too. Scattered all over the continent from Newfoundland to Oregon.

[Dewm 177]

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.

V. I. Lenin.

evolution

But enough of the jabs at each-other. Since it seems so many of you are devout evolutionist, riddle me this.

If God isn't real where did we get a week? (just as a fun question)

And another more serous one, if the Bible isn't true, and we are all spawn from happen-stance and survival of the fittest, why was Hitler killing Jews such an issue? I mean if we are just intelligent animals.. who's to say that the white caucasian didn't advance faster then black people?

Why is murder bad? we don't look badly at a bear killing a fish? or a bear killing another bear.. Why should me killing someone be frowned upon?

What about Sandyhook? wasn't that guy (don't even remember that bastards name) wasn't he just "survival of the fittest"?

When you take God out of the equation.. what is left? I mean if there is really no God, and we got here by accident then isn't thinking just chemical reactions in our brain?

I'm sorry but when you take out God, whether you believe in a Hindu God or a Christian God... the whole worlds morality falls apart.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

You CAN have morality without religion. That's the way how agnostic people and atheist go around. Though there is no God for them to forbid certain things, these things feel wrong or uncomfortable, hence why atheist don't murder each other out en masse.

You have people with religion with and without moral. Hitler's religion didn't stop him to do bad things; he was actually driven by it, by the thought of supremacy. There are more wars strongly involving religion. Where's is the moral in those wars? People tend to apply morals when it's in their benefit, and you can explain this partially by (there it comes again) evolution. Since we were hunters and gatherers in prehistoric age (and this was only 12,000 years ago, that's just not enough for macro-evolution), the rule was "take all food you can take or die". This nature is still present deep within us. If we look at the time scale evolution takes place, our civilization is just a blink of an eye in the geological time frame...

True, religion did play a role in the way moralities came to pass, but religion and moral are two things that can be separated from each other.

For the record, I'm agnostic, but I have quite a sense of moral

[Dewm 177]

You CAN have morality without religion. That's the way how agnostic people and atheist go around. Though there is no God for them to forbid certain things, these things feel wrong or uncomfortable, hence why atheist don't murder each other out en masse.

You have people with religion with and without moral. Hitler's religion didn't stop him to do bad things; he was actually driven by it, by the thought of supremacy. There are more wars strongly involving religion. Where's is the moral in those wars? People tend to apply morals when it's in their benefit, and you can explain this partially by (there it comes again) evolution. Since we were hunters and gatherers in prehistoric age (and this was only 12,000 years ago, that's just not enough for macro-evolution), the rule was "take all food you can take or die". This nature is still present deep within us. If we look at the time scale evolution takes place, our civilization is just a blink of an eye in the geological time frame...

True, religion did play a role in the way moralities came to pass, but religion and moral are two things that can be separated from each other.

For the record, I'm agnostic, but I have quite a sense of moral

See this is what I find almost funny.. You say that everything is just chemical reactions... but then you say you are moral.. If we are all just chemical reactions...what is morality? there is no such thing as morality.

Some animal many years ago had a chemical reaction in his brain, which made him think of the "idea" of morality, and then jot it down on a scroll... and boom.. now murder is wrong?

can't have it both ways.

You want to believe in evolution, but then you want the morality factor from the Bible. You can't have both, either we are random animals controlled by chemistry, or we are part of a larger design with a set of rules.. these rules are called "morals"

[Ocram's Razr 963]

1. The Old Testament is arguably highly immoral by today's standards but thank you, Dewm, for playing Devil's Advocate so we can continue this lively discussion.

2. Personally, I believe in a Higher Power and an after life but I agree with and understand evolution. One does not merely, believe in a theory blindly, at least if you want to have any credibility in the scientific community.

3. Morality is dictated by society and civilization. There are fundamental rights endowed by our creator but all basic human rights in Civilization stem from this: "Civilization requires it to respect its citizens." Respect is a basic human right, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness require a civilization to respect its citizens.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

<snip>

If God isn't real where did we get a week? (just as a fun question)

Your "fun" question leads one to ask how long God's week is? Could be eons per hour, couldn't it? It is impossible to know the mind of God, and if you don't agree with this by anyone's measure that is heresy.

The Roman month was divided into three parts, and each one was about nine days long. This is the way their calendar operated. If course it caused the seasons to slip, so every once in a while they proclaimed an extra month. Then one C. J. Caesar developed the Julian calendar. (If not that Caesar, then either Augustus or one of the other "Julian" emperors). That's where your seven day week came from. You are right, it was a fun question, but it has nothing to do with either the bible nor evolution.

[Mr Saturn64 742]

I won't get into a debate, as I do not like debating topics like this, but I will say that I believe science is explaining part of God's works.

Examples: God causes big bang.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

Some animal many years ago had a chemical reaction in his brain, which made him think of the "idea" of morality, and then jot it down on a scroll... and boom.. now murder is wrong?

There's one slight error in your reasoning: most species don't murder each other, only other species for food (and in some cases, a challenger that threatens the pack). We actually still do this; how else is that meat going to end up on your plate? Murdering someone of your own species didn't suddenly turned wrong; it was not common all along, because it was inefficient to allow such things in a group. If it did, we would be extinct. Again, this is survival of the fittest playing a role in morality.

Religion is an invention man made. As conscious and intelligent beings, it's a way to fulfill our curiosity and our urge to understand the world we live in. Religion offers structure (moral included), hope and most of all it tries to answer basic questions (though some argue that the religious answer is the "easy way"). In every culture, you see some kind of religion. From Christianity to Jewism to animalistic religions. There has been no culture in the world that started off without religion. Even regions that have a lot of atheists nowadays started off with a religion. It's something natural humans do...

Now in the age of science, we can find answers about the world in a different way. This is done by studying the natural world and doing experiments. With all these science stuff, do we need to throw away religion? The answer is no, because religion still offers structure and hope, and that's something we should cherish. Even non-religious people often agree that although they don't believe in a God, they still find moral important. But how do these non-religious people come to be in the first place? Right, science, because science fulfills that need for answers and explanation of our world. More important is that some things turned out a lot more complex and amazing then we ever thought (look at astronomy, elementary particles, quantum mechanics and of course biology). For me, I substitute my regious wonders with science wonders, because we live in an amazing world with so much yet to discover...

Best,

Maarten

[Meg 368]

I'm sure half the moderators wish this thread would just die once and for all because of the constant eye they have to keep on this topic. I'm sure if I scroll through all the pages we'll find massive flame wars (or the remains of them post-mod)

As long as people discuss the issues and not each other, there is no problem. But, yes, this thread tends to result in name calling more than other threads. Name calling is not acceptable.

can't have it both ways.

Why not?

You want to believe in evolution, but then you want the morality factor from the Bible. You can't have both, either we are random animals controlled by chemistry, or we are part of a larger design with a set of rules.. these rules are called "morals"

Where is the inconsistency in saying that humans evolved and then decided to create a moral system for their behavior?

Every society, Christian or not, has some code of moral behavior. (You may not agree with it, you may think that other societies have it all wrong. But they do have a code of some sort.)

So clearly humans are capable of creating moral standards without the bible.

[Indiana Joe 1,750]

One thing that has always intrigued me is how much both religion and science have changed over the centuries. So much of what people knew to be true 2,000 years ago is no longer believed. How do we know that anything we believe in now is true?

[MandelSoft 2,769]

OK, first things first:

You are sick in the head..

What part of Meg's post did you not understand? Name calling is not acceptable.

Further on: even there it's considered to be wrong to do such actions.

Also: we have a 7 day week just because it's standardized and it was "popular" amongst the most powerful (and therefore most influential) populations on earth: Western civilization (why the Western civilization? For that question i'd like you to refer to this documentary series, which explains excellently why the west ruled over the rest). This does not only include the Christians, but also the Jews, who actually came with the 7 day week first in the Old Testament, which is used in both the Christian Bible and the Quran (yes, the islam is partially based upon Christianity). We just have a 7 day week because it was standardized all over the world, just like there are 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in every our and 60 seconds in every minute.

If some other population with another religion would be powerful in the past, we would've worked with whole different systems. And still, we do work with different measuring systems in the world (just look at the imperal and the SI-system for measuring!)

Best,

Maarten

[Meg 368]

OK, first things first:

You are sick in the head..

What part of Meg's post did you not understand? Name calling is not acceptable.

Let me state it another way: Discuss the issues, not each other.

[Cobraroll 138]

The origin of the week is debated, but yes, most scientists indeed seem to link it to early Jewish or Babylonian tradition. It might also come down to polytheism, where each god got his own day in a continuous cycle, and the day of the "special god" marked the turn of the week. I don't know, I don't study history. What I do know, is that the days of the week in English still are named after various deities (in order of appearance: The day of the sun, the day of the moon, the day of Tyr, the day of Wodan, the day of Thor, the day of Frigg, the day of Saturn. Funnily enough, not all of them appear in the same pantheon, so I guess their appearance in the weekdays come from a pagan adaption to the already-existant seven-day-week, rather than the other way around.

Still, the week having seven days hardly disproves evolution. At the moment, we know roughly which culture it appeared in, but not how it got there. The early Jews might have invented it, they certainly didn't need a god to tell them a cyclic representation of time was a good idea. There are lots of possible ways they could have decided to stick with seven days, most of them don't require a supernatural being to tell them.

The same sort of goes for moral standards. Society can agree that some things better not be done. It is possible for a moral code to evolve throughout the centuries. It certainly has happened anyway, seeing as how many different interpretations there are of moral around. Some cultures find it perfectly moral to kill victims of rape because they are unclean. There have been cultures where not eating the bodies of the deceased was considered highly immoral. At some point down the line, western civilization decided it was for the better if we just let off that "selling your daughter" thing. You don't need divine intervention to tell you that killing your parents isn't a particularly good thing to do.

By the same logic, how can we love each other without believing in Aphrodite? How come there is evil (or hope) in the world if we don't accept the Theory of Pandora? How can we tell right from wrong without the guidance of Odin? No god, or even pantheon, has a monopoly on origin stories. There are literally hundreds of gods representing close to all aspects of human life. Justice, love, fear, death... take your pick. Every deity is just as good an explanation as the next. And there are also naturalistic explanations at hand, which doesn't involve omniscient beings with superpowers.

"Creationism vs. Evolution" isn't a particularly good wording, since it seems to set a precedent that the question is whether or not the Christian God created everything, or if science is right, and those are the only two possibilities. However, in truth, God's corner of the ring is cluttered with thousands upon thousands of supernatural claims, of which Yahweh is just another face in the crowd. Things aren't all pretty and sunshine on the scientific side either, but at least there is some consistency to spot. And science also at times states "We don't know, but we think we'll find out one day" or "We're not sure, but we're working on it" or even "Man, we got this one wrong. This here seems to be more accurate". Theories are adapted to take all facts into account, whereas the religions set things in stone and go from there. The scientific system also rewards those who find logical errors in the theories. Hundreds of scientists worldwide dream about being the one to disprove evolution, and there definitely are channels where they can publish their work for peer review (If Nature or Scientific Journal or those guys wouldn't publish it, the Discovery Institute sure would love to spread the word!). If the theory of evolution was disproved one day, science would surely rush around to find out what really goes on. But an eventual disproval of evolution would in no way prove any religious stories. We're not operating with booleans here.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Quite right. Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. Many famous scientists were/are religious. Basically, science is discovering that the Creator is smarter than they are.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

Reminds me of a quote in a comedy show of Guido Weijers:

Guido: "But God, I don't understand your work!"

God: "If I wanted you to understand Me, I would have made you smarter."

If God (if there is one) would've played a role in creation, I'd prefer the Ancient Greek Method:

- Explain what you can with science.

- What you can't explain with science (yet), use a God to explain it...

The Greeks ancient saw science as a way to understand the work of the Gods and it was to some extent a sacred duty.

[LexusInfernus 908]

If God isn't real where did we get a week? (just as a fun question)

Where did we get hours? Minutes? Seconds? Those are human inventions, you don't need a God to come up with units of time.

And another more serous one, if the Bible isn't true, and we are all spawn from happen-stance and survival of the fittest, why was Hitler killing Jews such an issue? I mean if we are just intelligent animals.. who's to say that the white caucasian didn't advance faster then black people?

Because we got brains that make an issue out of it. Our brains are capable of feats other animals are not. One of those feats is what we call morality. I know, its brain chemistry, and morality therefor does not really exist as an outside force that we have to conform to. Rather, morality is a concept that we impose on the world and ourselves, much like laws, etiquette, things like that. Anyways, our concept or morality has evolved us into thinking, believing that genocide is bad.

As for the second part, biologically that is simply not true. Biologically there is no significant difference between black and white people, aside from skin pigmentation. But from a social point of view? Well that depends on what you call advancement. Technologically and economically we call ourselves vastly superior, but that came at a huge cost, and has led us to the point that one wrong move could result in the destruction of everything.

Why is murder bad? we don't look badly at a bear killing a fish? or a bear killing another bear.. Why should me killing someone be frowned upon?

Because a bear killing a fish is not any more murder than you killing a rabbit. But how often do you see bears killing bears, or lions killing lions? They fight, sure, but that seldom results in death.

Asides from that, would you want to live in a society where murder is seen as nothing bad? Where anyone could just go up to you and kill you? Don't think so. Society evolved to introduce structures that form a deterrent against murder, not because of some lofty moral principle but because it serves the needs of the individual members of that society.

What about Sandyhook? wasn't that guy (don't even remember that bastards name) wasn't he just &amp;amp;amp;quot;survival of the fittest&amp;amp;amp;quot;?

Social Darwinism like that is a stupid idea and was rightly buried underneath the rubble of the Third Reich when the allies kicked their sorry Nazi butts.

When you take God out of the equation.. what is left? I mean if there is really no God, and we got here by accident then isn't thinking just chemical reactions in our brain?

I'm sorry but when you take out God, whether you believe in a Hindu God or a Christian God... the whole worlds morality falls apart.

Meh, even with God life over here was still an accident, and thoughts remain nothing more than chemical reactions. The existence of God does not affect the facts that we have discovered so far. If that is the case, it means that we have had these morals and morality as a concept all that time even though there was no God to enforce it.

Aside from that, who is to say that God would even care about us in the way the Christians portray him as caring? God is something that is infinitely above and beyond our understanding, but he so happens to care so much about this race of beings living on this tiny little world, insignificant in all aspects. Yet we choose to believe that God pretty much made everything ever just for us, and that we were so super special we deserve special divine attention over all other living creatures in this world.

In the end though, you should just keep believing in that what makes you comfortable though. I find that faith in higher beings only adds a little extra flavor to life.

EDIT, sorry for this crappy post, the editor is acting weird and doesn't put in quotes correctly.

[astronelson 339]

ST was down for a bit before, perhaps that had something to do with the problems with the quotes.

If God (if there is one) would've played a role in creation, I'd prefer the Ancient Greek Method:

- Explain what you can with science.

- What you can't explain with science (yet), use a God to explain it...

The Greeks ancient saw science as a way to understand the work of the Gods and it was to some extent a sacred duty.

There are a few important things to keep in mind when using this method, however, and forgetting them is extremely perilous. You must remember to remove explained things from the domain of the gods when explanations arise, and you must remember to always keep searching for explanations in the natural world rather than the supernatural.

I am going to talk in a rather metaphorical sense, I do hope I am forgiven for that. I feel it expresses my thoughts on the matter rather well though.

Over the aeons there have been many things we have explained and stopped attributing to gods (or at the very least, that many have stopped attributing to gods). We no longer keep gods of fire, weather, the seasons, gods of the sun and the moon, and of the other planets. We understand the principles of combusiton, the mechanisms that affect the weather, we know in exquisite detail the processes that cause the sun to shine and the celestial bodies to follow their paths free of crystal spheres or the assistance of angels.

From the time man first started thinking, experimenting, and questioning, we have claimed and mapped an ever-increasing empire of the scientifically known, and the once-vast lands of the unknown and unexplained, the domain of gods and the supernatural, has shrunk. At times it has been slow, but we have brought light to that terra incognita, and it is a light that never fades.

As we have grown this empire, we have encountered no resistance from the land we explore and claim as our own. Sometimes we discover our maps are inaccurate and rectify them - Newtonian Physics to Relativity, for example - but at no point has any representative of that land come to us and expressed their sole jurisdiction over any minute area of it. There have been stories from ages past of what may lie in lands beyond our knowledge, of the domains of the gods. But eventually, as we reached them, charted and mapped them, and added them to our domain, we have found no basis for these stories. There was no lord of fire or duke of disease. We explored the planets and found them free of rulers.

Many have started to believe that there are no residents of the unknown lands - that there are no gods. Perhaps it is indeed a true terra nullius. At the very least the lands they have to inhabit are shrinking, and with that, their powers. There will always be unknown lands, of course. But our empire of the known will only grow.

Evolution is a well-mapped kingdom. We know its rivers and its mountains, its coasts and plains. We are still charting the finer details - creeks and streams, small ridges and gullies - and we may never finish the map to exact detail. But just because the map is not perfect, just because we cannot give the location of every single pebble or sand grain or blade of grass in the kingdom, it does not mean that we do not know the kingdom at all, or indeed that the kingdom does not exist. We understand it well. The records of exploration to every recorded detail are available for all to see.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Hmmm. I go out for an hour and the site is worse than ever. This editor doesn't have a control panel. But anyway, everyone is welcome in my Church of God the Utterly Indifferent. We try to get along on our own.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Thank you, astronelson, for the great analogy. Hopefully everyone hear listens to reason. Unfortunately, some people cannot be reasoned with. --Ocram

[KonstantinII 1,106]

You guys got the wrong idea about this. It's not creationism vs, evolution. It's creationism AND evolution.

[astronelson 339]

You guys got the wrong idea about this. It's not creationism vs, evolution. It's creationism AND evolution.

 

Going by the dictionary.com definition, creationism is "the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed." By its very definition it is incompatible with evolution.

 

You could argue that the omnipotent creator of your choice merely started the whole thing off, in which case it would not be creationism vs. evolution but rather creationism vs. abiogenesis, and you'd probably want to look for another word to avoid confusion.

 

Regardless, either form of creationism has less evidence supporting it than a cubic micrometre of hard vacuum has atoms.

[Wiimeiser 436]

Slightly off-topic but:

Were hours composed of 60 minutes and not the standard 120 so there could never be a 6:66? That's something that's baffled me for years.

[astronelson 339]

 

Slightly off-topic but:

Were hours composed of 60 minutes and not the standard 120 so there could never be a 6:66? That's something that's baffled me for years.

 

No - the subdivision of time in this manner (60 seconds to a minute, 60 minutes to an hour, 24 hours to a day) dates back to at least the Babylonians, who used a base-60 system. That's over 4,000 years ago, certainly long before Revelation was written and quite possibly predating any part of the Bible.

 

The French had a fling with decimalised time during the revolution, but that was abandoned.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

Why 60? Because it's quite easy to divide 60 up in 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20 or 30 pieces without having non-integer numbers.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Equally off topic: In SI it is possible to divide a circle into four quadrants with 100 divisions in a right angle called 'grads'.  The last French road maps I saw used that one.  Confusing.  (The earth's circumference is 40,000 Km at the equator or 25,000 miles.  What a coincidence that a Km is 5 furlongs, and a mile is 8 furlongs).  None of this converts the value of pi to anything other than 3.1415926535....

 

---

 

Clerical rationalizations aside, let's say God made a big bang and left things to be doped out in good time.

[astronelson 339]

 

Equally off topic: In SI it is possible to divide a circle into four quadrants with 100 divisions in a right angle called 'grads'.  The last French road maps I saw used that one.  Confusing.  (The earth's circumference is 40,000 Km at the equator or 25,000 miles.  What a coincidence that a Km is 5 furlongs, and a mile is 8 furlongs).  None of this converts the value of pi to anything other than 3.1415926535....

 

---

 

Clerical rationalizations aside, let's say God made a big bang and left things to be doped out in good time.

 

That's not SI. SI uses radians for angles. The length of a metre was originally defined as precisely one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole through Paris (there was a competing definition, based on the length of a pendulum with a period of half a second. This was rejected   (the since the force of gravity varies slightly over the Earth's surface).

 

The grad is generally only used in specialized fields like surveying (where it is apparently common worldwide) or artillery, not general use (aside from pie charts).

 

The value of pi is a fundamental constant, it will keep the same value regardless of the units you use (but for obvious reasons it will be written differently if you choose a different numerical base).

 

And you may argue all you want about what happened before the Big Bang, by definition none of it will be provable or disprovable. If anything did manage to happen before time itself existed, the Big Bang wiped all evidence of it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Somehow, I don't see maps laid out in radians working at all.  It is extraordinary that one minute of latitude = 1 nautical mile.  It makes ded. reckoning on Mercator projections very easy except in very high latitudes.  I believe it was the state of Tennessee that decreed the value of pi to be 3.0 exactly.  Really ruined all their maps and surveys, I am sure.  As for pi(e) I like cherry or apple.