Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Paul Abramson, a young earth creationist and pal of Kent Hovind, has announced that he is running for Congress from the 8th district in Indiana, running against Rep. Brad Ellsworth. Abramson is the founder of creationism.org, which is a profoundly absurd site even by creationist standards.
How can you tell which creationist sites are particularly absurd? When they're still pushing arguments that other creationists long ago told their followers to stop using. For instance, long after the Institute for Creation Research admitted that the Paluxy "manprints" were not really human footprints, Abramson still pushes that nonsense. He still pushes the absolutely ridiculous "moon dust" argument. And this man wants to be in Congress. Yikes.
Comments
That site is so bad, that if I hadn't seen those arguments used on numerous other sites (especially Hovind's) I would suspect it of being parody,
Posted by: G. Shelley | February 14, 2008 11:45 AM
The problem with that standard is that it still leaves every creationist website as "profoundly absurd". They all push arguments that other creationists have abandoned because the branches of creationism are quite contradictory. Just take the long standing question, "Where did the water for the flood come from?". You'll have some pushing the Vapor Canopy, while others claim it had to be massive comet impact. Another claims it was multiple impacts. A fourth points to geothermal vents releasing the water. Another claims it wasn't water being added, but the continents lowering beneath the existing water.
What do all these have in common? Well, they're all patently preposterous, and most creationist websites will note that at least some of the other ideas are patently preposterous, while pushing their own indellibly stupid ideas.
So, we really need a different standard for "particularly absurd" when applied to creationists. I prefer to use self-contradictory in a glaringly obvious fashion, such as the large number of websites that argue simultaneously that Archaeopteryx fossils are fakes, just dinosaurs with feathers added, while elsewhere claiming Archy is a "pure bird" that has no dinosaur features at all. AIG gets props for having made both claims in a single paragraph (though they later fixed it).
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | February 14, 2008 11:48 AM
"long after the Institute for Creation Research admitted that the Paluxy "manprints" were not really human footprints, Abramson still pushes that nonsense."
I remember a friend tried to convert me in 2003 using those footprints. I looked it up and found out it had been debunked since 1982. It was just weird, this 26-year-old woman trying to sell me Christianity with information that was discredited when we were both 5.
I guess misinformation never expires (for those who can't be bothered to research things for themselves at least)
Posted by: Jason Failes | February 14, 2008 11:54 AM
My dad actually tried the "moon dust" argument on me once. That was several years ago. I bitch slapped him so hard with facts about moon exploration that he never brought it up again.
Posted by: Wes | February 14, 2008 11:58 AM
Heh. I had a coworker a little over a year ago that believed in the manprints, UFOs, bigfoot, and Atlantis. He also believed automakers and big oil were suppressing 100MPG carburators, the Stoern free energy thing was true, and some guy in Florida was burning water.
When we discussed the carburators I got online to show him that US cars haven't used carburators at all since the early 90s. Of course, he just took the total lack of carburators in new cars to be evidence of the conpiracy. Silly man, but talking with him sure made a slow afternoon go by.
Posted by: SeanH | February 14, 2008 12:07 PM
Congress is probably the only place that will hire somebody that out of touch.
Posted by: BaldApe | February 14, 2008 12:17 PM
Shit, this is my district. I'm no fan of the "democratic" incumbant, a blue dog democrat named Brad Ellsworth, but now I have to listen to this crap for the next several months as the republicans campaign. Oh well, the squirrels will have plenty of spring nuts to choose from. Sigh.
Dave
Posted by: David Worthington | February 14, 2008 2:27 PM
To Dave Worthington: I also live in this district and was equally dismayed to read that this clown entered into the race. Frankly, I don't think that he stands any chance whatsoever in May's primary, but he will attract a fair amount of support from the fundies.
Still, Brad Ellsworth is an improvement over the previous 8th District officeholder Hostettler, and is still preferable over Paul Abramson. Given the typical Indiana voter, getting a blue-dog Democrat may be the best that we can hope to get.
Posted by: Engr Tony | February 14, 2008 4:09 PM
This is my home district also. Engr Tony said it all, given the typical Indiana voter (at least in my experience) someone like Brad Ellsworth is about as good a candidate as we can expect. All you need to know about Indiana is this; in 1897 the Indiana House passed a resolution redefining pi. It passed the House unanimously, before dying in the Senate.
Posted by: Ryan | February 14, 2008 7:02 PM
Ryan, the story behind that is a little better than it sounds. Rep. Taylor Record introduced the bill at the request of a constituent, Dr. Edwin Goodwin. Dr. Goodwin was apparently something of a crackpot. Neverless, the House passed it after the Committee on Education recommended that it pass and the Superintendant of Public Instruction said that "Goodwin had solved the problem of squaring the circle." If it hadn't been for Professor Clarence Waldo of the Purdue math department, the Senate might have gone along with it.
http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/Indiana_Pi_Story.htm
Posted by: OriGuy | February 14, 2008 7:25 PM
This clown thinks he can get elected?
Seems the relavant question here is: "Where's Waldo?" - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 14, 2008 11:31 PM
Or the new, improved 'Metallic Hydrogen Canopy' variant.
Posted by: MartinM | February 15, 2008 5:06 AM
Engr Tony and Ryan,
Ellsworth may indeed be the best we can hope to elect right now. I'm not sure that means that I support him or that I have to vote for him. His vote on every major issue I've bothered to check on has been the opposite of what I would support (torture comes immediately to mind). I think he will be reelected, he has a style that people like, a former cop he gets support from some on the middle right, and he hasn't tried to carry a handgun onto an airplane like his predecessor. But that doesn't make him a candidate I can vote for without a clothes pin permanently attached to my nose.
All that said, Abramson is a nut and will not get the nomination, but he will get support, there are plenty of fundy christianists around here who will nod there heads and say "yep."
Posted by: David Worthington | February 15, 2008 8:35 AM
Ryan -
Can you provide a reference or link to that 1897 resolution? I would love to learn about it!
Posted by: ZacharySmith | February 15, 2008 9:22 AM
That reminds me of the time I did a rebuttal essay to one of his pages that displayed blurred and out-of-context photos taken from Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC. When you look at dino-photo page on his site, you can see the photos he made to be blurred and up-close in an effort to hide everything that exposes his young earth beliefs to be totally false.
You can read my essay about Abramson's blurred photos here
Posted by: Crazyharp81602 | February 16, 2008 12:20 AM
Ryan, Tony and David,
Another district resident here who is definitely in agreement with you about Ellsworth's qualities. This may actually help Ellsworth a little since it will force the other republican candidates to talk about creationism and either piss off the fundamentalist base or show how far out they really are.
Posted by: Don | February 16, 2008 7:17 AM
One thing that seldom gets noticed is that in the creationist silliness over vapor canopies, or pre-flood subterranean water, or whatever, they keep looking for natural explanations for things they claim are miraculous.
Reminds me of the Keebler Cookie commercial. "What part of 'magic oven' don't you get?"
Of course it is because they are trying to get respect from people whose minds have not been reduced to mush.
Good luck on that one.
Posted by: BaldApe | February 16, 2008 10:35 AM
From your looks Ed, I would lay off the Cheetos and Cokes for awhile...
You might get more votes with a leaner, meaner look!
Posted by: wagonjak | February 16, 2008 12:58 PM