Yecch

[rmwilliamsll]

http://www.swordandspirit.com/LIBRARY/FUNNY/YECCH/index2.html

the OP is a Christian site not secular.

my point is that the parody site was considered real by lots of people because of the things YECists say.

 

[Critias]

Are you suggesting that scientists who promote your point of view are perfect?



If you think it is wrong to make those kinds of comments why do it yourself?

As you can see, I was flamed here for saying such a thing. It is nothing but hypocrisy. It is terrible for yec's to say such demeaning things to TEs, but it OK for TEs to say demeaning things to yecs.

Then if you ask TEs to present evidence for their assertions that Genesis is a myth or poetic when looking at the Hebrew language, not one has an adequate answer because they do not have anything to back it up. What they use is modern English to back up how ancient Hebrews thought. Yet, they demand scientific evidence from yec's for their claims.

YEC's must realize we are not playing on an equal playing field here. One side demands evidence and when evidence is demanded from them, they cannot provide any and assert that they don't need it.

Honestly, it is a waste of time for yec's to debate in this forum. They don't need evidence for their assertion that Genesis is a myth and/or poetic, but they demand scientific evidence out of yec's. Hypocrisy.

 

[theFijian]

Honestly, it is a waste of time for yec's to debate in this forum. They don't need evidence for their assertion that Genesis is a myth and/or poetic, but they demand scientific evidence out of yec's. Hypocrisy.

Don't you think that's slightly disingenuous? Gluadys and other have presented evidence in the thread you started here. You may not agree with their standpoint but you can;t say that no evidence has been presented.

 

[vossler]

Don't you think that's slightly disingenuous? Gluadys and other have presented evidence in the thread you started here. You may not agree with their standpoint but you can;t say that no evidence has been presented.

I don't know about anyone else but I will concur with Critias that it is, for the most part, a waste of time to debate TEs in this forum. IMO, almost without exception their reference point is science and not the Bible, everything in the Bible is in some way conformed to match with what science has shown the world. Rarely if ever do I sense a genuine attempt to use the Bible as the basis for their beliefs. Obviously and thankfully I don't know their true motivation, that's between them and the Lord.

So, when you say they've presented their 'evidence' what you're really saying is their 'scientific evidence' is being presented rather eloquently by people like gluadys. BTW, isn't that why most people won't challenge their 'evidence' because the vast majority of people don't have a scientific background of any sort and the 'evidence', on the surface, does sound rather compelling. Yet, I would submit if people just looked at all the claims that evolutionists have made over the years they would never take anything they say at face value. There have been countless frauds presented in the name of 'science', some of which are still in our textbooks over 50 years later. But because it was presented by so called 'experts' who the average person on the street isn't able to confront, due in large part to their ignorance of the the Word, they readily accept their theories and hypotheses at face value.

Theologically their evidence is, IMO, even shakier than their scientific evidence. It's based on a relegating Genesis to a myth, poetic story or a figurative reading because, essentially, God didn't think we could understand billions of years so he told us days instead.

It's amazing, absolutely amazing, how the thief has gotten Christians to embrace the world's thinking while at the same time believing they are truly professing the truth.

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

 

[theFijian]

So, when you say they've presented their 'evidence' what you're really saying is their 'scientific evidence' is being presented rather eloquently by people like gluadys.

It's not a scientific discussion, it's a discussion of literary styles. I presume yo have read the thread in question here

Rarely if ever do I sense a genuine attempt to use the Bible as the basis for their beliefs. etc etc <snip>

Now I remember why I stopped visiting the Origins Theology forum.

 

[vossler]

It's not a scientific discussion, it's a discussion of literary styles. I presume yo have read the thread in question here



Now I remember why I stopped visiting the Origins Theology forum.

Oh yes, I've read the thread you cited. Look, I'm not here to get into another argument about whether or not Genesis or any other part of the Bible is a myth, poetic or figurative. The fact that many Christians believe that God used evolution to create His creation and will go to extreme lengths to hypothesize and justify their beliefs with so called scientific evidence is reason enough not to entertain such discussions. What I will do, primarily for the occassional visitor to this forum, is at least let it be known that there still are Christians who believe God did what He said He did, the way He said He did it. Beyond that, I leave the rest in His more than able hands.

 

[Critias]

I have seen what Gluadys has written to support her assertion the Enuma Elish is very much like Genesis. I also see here use of the gods in the Enuma Elish as types of water. Apsu, is the father of the gods in the story and consort to Tiamat. Tiamat is the Babylonian goddess of the ocean. They are not fresh and sea water, they are gods. That first of her assertion does not fall into how the ancients viewed it and that is what we are talking about.

I don't care how modern english sees it, I would love to see anyone here attempt to present the views express of the ancient Hebrews and Bablyonians concerning their own writings. Not one has done so, instead it has been sidetracked into using modern English to explain this. Modern's and ancients view points are very much different.

Not one has been able to present ancient view points. I have presented ancient view points of Genesis here to support that they saw and believed Genesis' creation account was a narrative and historical.

When I ask for TEs to give evidence of their assertions that Genesis is a myth, they get upset, flame anyone for asking, tell you you think they are less of Christian when you don't. All to just deter the subject at hand and go into a personal attack. They don't have the evidence and when asked to present it, they act as if they don't need it.

If yec's make claims on any scientific evidence, TEs demand for evidence. This is not an equal playing field here. TEs demand evidence from yec's and tell yec's they need no evidence for their assertions of Genesis being poetic and/or myth. They can only present modern beliefs and not how the ancients viewed it. And if a yec presents something that is 20-50 years old in science they laughed out of the forum.

These aren't debates, they are not equally. TEs feel they don't need evidence, and expect yec to have evidence that is beyond sufficient and even then will tell they are wrong. Then TEs in here will post cartoon pictures to put down yecs.

You really have to ask yourself, is this really a Christian forum? Because, if it was, all of us wouldn't be acting this way. That is my two cents worth and I am sure for the many TEs here it is less than that. So be it.

 

[gluadys]

Yet, I would submit if people just looked at all the claims that evolutionists have made over the years they would never take anything they say at face value. There have been countless frauds presented in the name of 'science', some of which are still in our textbooks over 50 years later. But because it was presented by so called 'experts' who the average person on the street isn't able to confront, due in large part to their ignorance of the the Word, they readily accept their theories and hypotheses at face value.

Countless frauds?

Or less than five frauds?

Can you name more than five frauds in connection with the theory of evolution?

Can you name more than two that have ever been presented in textbooks? Can you name any textbook published in the last 25 years in which they have been presented as sound science and not identified as frauds?

In the textbook I used over 30 years ago, two well-known frauds were discussed. And both of them were discussed as frauds, not as supporting the theory of evolution.

 

[theFijian]

When I ask for TEs to give evidence of their assertions that Genesis is a myth, they get upset, flame anyone for asking

Well obviously I read that thread too, but I don't think gluadys was flaming anybody?

TEs demand evidence from yec's and tell yec's they need no evidence for their assertions of Genesis being poetic and/or myth

Again I think that you were given plenty of evidence, you disagree with the standpoint given but disagreeing is ok isn't it?

 

[gluadys]

I also see here use of the gods in the Enuma Elish as types of water. Apsu, is the father of the gods in the story and consort to Tiamat. Tiamat is the Babylonian goddess of the ocean. They are not fresh and sea water, they are gods.

In mythology, the goddess of the ocean and the ocean are the same thing. What Tiamat does, the ocean does; what the ocean does, Tiamat does.

Same for other deities. The sun-god is not an arms-length creator or controller of the sun. He is the sun. In pagan religions the sun is worshipped because it is a god. Not just an image or symbol of a god, but the god himself.

Not one has been able to present ancient view points.

The myths are the ancient viewpoints.

 

[herev]

I have to say, I laughed until I felt tired and yet at the same time, younger....thanks

 

[vossler]

Countless frauds?

Or less than five frauds?

Can you name more than five frauds in connection with the theory of evolution?

Here are 10:

Piltdown Man

Nebraska Man

Java Man

Peppered Moths

Orce man

Lucy

Brontosaurus

Archaeoraptor

Neanderthal

Ota Benga

Can you name more than two that have ever been presented in textbooks? Can you name any textbook published in the last 25 years in which they have been presented as sound science and not identified as frauds?

In the textbook I used over 30 years ago, two well-known frauds were discussed. And both of them were discussed as frauds, not as supporting the theory of evolution.

Haeckel’s drawings of embryonic homology which he first published in 1866 in his Generalle Morphologie der Organismen, - This fraud was perpetrated in science and biology books ever since then and wasn’t totally refuted until the just the last few years.
Here's another one with the link to the original site here.

In a hard-hitting exposé (‘Survival of the Fakest’) of evolutionists’ gaffes and quackeries, Dr Jonathan Wells (Ph.D., Biology, U.C. Berkeley) lists seven ‘pillars of Darwinian theory’ that are featured in many science books today (including standard texts that have seen many printings*) yet are patently incorrect, and are KNOWN by the general scientific community to be wrong.

If you attended government schools anywhere in the world, you were probably wrongly taught that the following were facts, as Dr Wells debunks:

·that the famous Miller/Urey experiment of 1953 supposedly produced the building blocks of life in a test tube.

The truth: Miller/Urey had to have a hydrogen-rich atmosphere for their experiment. Yet for almost 30 years, scientists involved in this field of research have concluded that the early atmosphere of Earth was quite different from this. So while their experiment does not work at all, some texts (e.g. Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts) continue to inform students that the first step to creating life was overcome by Miller and Urey.

·that embryos in vertebrates are virtually identical in their early stages, which is evidence of descent from a common evolutionary ancestor.

The truth: this was an outright fraud first perpetrated over 100 years ago as ‘science’. Incredibly, the doctored drawings of embryonic similarity have been known to be false for about 100 years, and yet Dr Wells reports that ‘most current biology textbooks’ feature the fake drawings as powerful evidence for evolution.

· That peppered moths in an area of England, which went from being mostly light colored to dark colored in the overall moth population, are evidence for evolution occurring in the present.

The truth: even putting aside the obvious fact that the moths are still moths and thus no upward evolution could have occurred anyway, the whole episode was staged to begin with! (as was reported in detail in our Creation magazine) Nevertheless, Dr Wells has discovered that the staged photographs of dead moths glued to tree trunks continues to appear in almost all biology texts and is supposed ‘proof’ of evolution working through the mechanism of natural selection.

*Including the popular high school textbook Biology co-authored by leading anti-creationist Dr George B. Johnson (the text is in at least its fifth edition).

 

[gluadys]

Here are 10:

Piltdown Man

The most famous fraud in the history of science.

Nebraska Man

Not a fraud.

Java Man

Not a fraud.

Peppered Moths

Not a fraud.

Orce man

Not a fraud.

Lucy

Not a fraud.

Brontosaurus

Is this referring to a particular find? Or to the Brontosaurus in general. In the latter case: not a fraud. Nor have I heard of a particular find which was fraudulent.

Archaeoraptor

Yes, this was a fraud.

Neanderthal

Again, I have no information of a specific find which has been alleged to be fraudulent. There is certainly no reason why all Neandertal finds would be frauds.

Ota Benga

Not a fraud.

I don't know why you label so many items fraudulent when they clearly are not. A fraud is a deliberate attempt to deceive. Peking Man was a chimera deliberately put together, and deliberately planted, then "discovered". That is what makes it a fraud. Archeoraptor was made of genuine fossils, but the two fossils were put together to appear as one, and sold under pretence that it was a single find. That is what makes it a fraud.

Most of the others involve genuine finds with no attempt to deceive. The pepper moth study was a legitimate study with legitimate findings which have been confirmed by followup studies.

The Ota Benga is an extraordinary incident involving an amateur anthropologist wanting to promote his racist theory of evolution, but not one of deliberate fraud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga

Haeckel’s drawings of embryonic homology which he first published in 1866 in his Generalle Morphologie der Organismen, - This fraud was perpetrated in science and biology books ever since then and wasn’t totally refuted until the just the last few years.
Here's another one with the link to the original site here.

That's nonsense. Haeckel personally admitted altering about half a dozen of his drawings, so this fraud was known in his lifetime. He actually made more than 100 drawings, most of which were not doctored. Textbook publishers did continue to use the drawings because (except for those altered) they were very good and accessible without copyright. But I have yet to hear of a textbook mentioning Haeckel which did not discuss both the errors in his theory and the altered drawings. Do you have the text about Haeckel from teh Biology text you cited?

In a hard-hitting exposé (‘Survival of the Fakest’) of evolutionists’ gaffes and quackeries, Dr Jonathan Wells (Ph.D., Biology, U.C. Berkeley) lists seven ‘pillars of Darwinian theory’ that are featured in many science books today (including standard texts that have seen many printings*) yet are patently incorrect, and are KNOWN by the general scientific community to be wrong.

The allegation was that "There have been countless frauds presented in the name of 'science',..." Most of what you have presented were not frauds.

Gaffes are a different matter since they are mistakes, not frauds. Nebraska man was a temporary mis-identification. At no point was it a deliberate deception. So it was not a fraud.

If you attended government schools anywhere in the world, you were probably wrongly taught that the following were facts, as Dr Wells debunks:

·that the famous Miller/Urey experiment of 1953 supposedly produced the building blocks of life in a test tube.

...which it did. It produced amino acids.

The truth: Miller/Urey had to have a hydrogen-rich atmosphere for their experiment. Yet for almost 30 years, scientists involved in this field of research have concluded that the early atmosphere of Earth was quite different from this. So while their experiment does not work at all, some texts (e.g. Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts) continue to inform students that the first step to creating life was overcome by Miller and Urey.

This is irrelevant. The test did produce amino acids--the building blocks of proteins. Furthermore similar tests have been done with a variety of possible ancient atmospheres, and these have also produced amino acids. So although the particular atmosphere used in the 1953 experiments may not have been representative of the atmosphere of early earth, it is still possible that the Miller-Urey technique is correct since other atmospheres also yield a positive result.

Note however that the Mille-Urey experiment was never intended to provide a model of the creation of life. Its goal was much more modest: to see if organic molecules could have formed in the conditions prevalent on the early earth. That goal was met and continues to be met in the many variations of the 1953 experiment.

·that embryos in vertebrates are virtually identical in their early stages, which is evidence of descent from a common evolutionary ancestor.

They are and with modern techniques for photographing embryos we no longer need to depend on Haeckel's drawings to demonstrate that fact.

· That peppered moths in an area of England, which went from being mostly light colored to dark colored in the overall moth population, are evidence for evolution occurring in the present.

They did, and they do. They are an excellent example of natural selection, one of the mechanisms of evolution.

The truth: even putting aside the obvious fact that the moths are still moths and thus no upward evolution could have occurred anyway, the whole episode was staged to begin with! (as was

Why would you expect them to be anything other than moths? The episode was not staged. That the proportion of black moths increased significantly over a century in parts of Britain is a fact which was well documented before Kettlewell began his research. Kettlewells' research technique did involved pinning moths to tree trunks both for easier observation of bird predation, and for ease in taking photos of the respective camouflaging effect of the different colours on different trees.

However, it is difficult to see how this would affect his results. He did nothing that would change the predatory habits of the birds, and that is what was being measured.

Nevertheless, Dr Wells has discovered that the staged photographs of dead moths glued to tree trunks continues to appear in almost all biology texts and is supposed ‘proof’ of evolution working through the mechanism of natural selection.[/size]

And what is wrong with that? Does the fact the moths were glued to the trunks change their colour, or the colour of the tree trunk? Does it change the point about the camouflaging effect of the different colours in different environments?

Most importantly, does it change which moths the birds tend to find and eat most often?

If the answer to all of these is "no" why is there a fuss about the method? Sounds to me like Wells is misdirecting attention to methodology in order to divert attention from the results of the experiment. Good methodology is important, but if the methodology has no effect on the outcome of the experiment, there is no reason to find fault with it.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I would say they are all frauds, just not all frauds pulled on scientists… They are all frauds pulled on YEC’s by their leadership to keep them ignorant, in line, and paying money.



The funny thing about Haeckel’s [unatlered] drawings is the reason that they are still in textbooks as examples are because of the YEC movement. The use of actual pictures in primary school textbooks is violently opposed to by the school boards in Texas, where most text books are “test marketed.” The US’s major textbook manufacturers are in Texas so it is easiest to test in Texas, plus the Texas school boards are more conservative and have higher numbers of YECs in them. So if a textbook sells well in Texas then they can rely on it being more palatable across the nation in other YEC dominated areas, thus a better chance of selling the same book without having to go through costly rewrites.

 

[Micaiah]

Here are 10:

Piltdown Man

Nebraska Man

Java Man

Peppered Moths

Orce man

Lucy

Brontosaurus

Archaeoraptor

Neanderthal

Ota Benga



Haeckel’s drawings of embryonic homology which he first published in 1866 in his Generalle Morphologie der Organismen, - This fraud was perpetrated in science and biology books ever since then and wasn’t totally refuted until the just the last few years.
Here's another one with the link to the original site here.

In a hard-hitting exposé (‘Survival of the Fakest’) of evolutionists’ gaffes and quackeries, Dr Jonathan Wells (Ph.D., Biology, U.C. Berkeley) lists seven ‘pillars of Darwinian theory’ that are featured in many science books today (including standard texts that have seen many printings*) yet are patently incorrect, and are KNOWN by the general scientific community to be wrong.

If you attended government schools anywhere in the world, you were probably wrongly taught that the following were facts, as Dr Wells debunks:

·that the famous Miller/Urey experiment of 1953 supposedly produced the building blocks of life in a test tube.

The truth: Miller/Urey had to have a hydrogen-rich atmosphere for their experiment. Yet for almost 30 years, scientists involved in this field of research have concluded that the early atmosphere of Earth was quite different from this. So while their experiment does not work at all, some texts (e.g. Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts) continue to inform students that the first step to creating life was overcome by Miller and Urey.

·that embryos in vertebrates are virtually identical in their early stages, which is evidence of descent from a common evolutionary ancestor.

The truth: this was an outright fraud first perpetrated over 100 years ago as ‘science’. Incredibly, the doctored drawings of embryonic similarity have been known to be false for about 100 years, and yet Dr Wells reports that ‘most current biology textbooks’ feature the fake drawings as powerful evidence for evolution.

· That peppered moths in an area of England, which went from being mostly light colored to dark colored in the overall moth population, are evidence for evolution occurring in the present.

The truth: even putting aside the obvious fact that the moths are still moths and thus no upward evolution could have occurred anyway, the whole episode was staged to begin with! (as was reported in detail in our Creation magazine) Nevertheless, Dr Wells has discovered that the staged photographs of dead moths glued to tree trunks continues to appear in almost all biology texts and is supposed ‘proof’ of evolution working through the mechanism of natural selection.

*Including the popular high school textbook Biology co-authored by leading anti-creationist Dr George B. Johnson (the text is in at least its fifth edition).

More skeletons in the closet than missing links.

Have a look at this link for some more of Haeckel's fairy stories:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/haeckel.asp

How many times have we shown that the peppered moths story is not evidence for evolution and demonstrated that the claims made about the moths have been thoroughtly discredited, and yet it persists to be used by TE's.

 

[vossler]

I don't know why you label so many items fraudulent when they clearly are not. A fraud is a deliberate attempt to deceive. Peking Man was a chimera deliberately put together, and deliberately planted, then "discovered". That is what makes it a fraud. Archeoraptor was made of genuine fossils, but the two fossils were put together to appear as one, and sold under pretence that it was a single find. That is what makes it a fraud.

As I've stated before, I'm not here to get into a scientific discussion about what is or isn't a fraud or anything else. That's not the reason why I occasionally come here and post. For me to do that would a: not be enjoyable in the least and b: not be something I have much ability at and finally, probably the most important reason c: it's not pertinent to the intent of this forum.

So, you asked for what I considered to be frauds and I gave you my answer and if that isn't what you were looking for, I'm sorry it will have to do. You get the last word.

If what I said was, as you say, nonsense then those that frequent here will see that and dismiss my accusations. I have no problem with that.

 

[gluadys]

So, you asked for what I considered to be frauds...

No I didn't ask for what you considered to be frauds. I asked for actual frauds. Here is the original question.

Can you name more than five frauds in connection with the theory of evolution?

You named three actual frauds.

But the original allegation is that the history of the theory of evolution is plagued by "countless frauds".

I do not consider three frauds to be countless. When you note that only two were committed by scientists (Archeoraptor was faked by Chinese peasants looking to make some money from the interest in fossils.) and that both those two are over 80 years old, I think a retraction of the allegation is in order.

If you want to assert that some of the others involve fraud, you will have to show evidence of intentional dishonesty. If that is not what you are alleging, then don't use the term "fraud" as it is not applicable.

 

[vossler]

I do not consider three frauds to be countless. When you note that only two were committed by scientists (Archeoraptor was faked by Chinese peasants looking to make some money from the interest in fossils.) and that both those two are over 80 years old, I think a retraction of the allegation is in order.

If you want to assert that some of the others involve fraud, you will have to show evidence of intentional dishonesty. If that is not what you are alleging, then don't use the term "fraud" as it is not applicable.

Maybe you and other evolutionists believe that the scientist Osborne who actually thought a pigs tooth was 'Nebraska Man', a transitional form that even had drawings published and was given a "scientific name" made an honest mistake. A mistake, by the way, that took the scientific community 5 years to disprove. This either means that the scientific community, in order for it to take this "find" so seriously, has extremely low standards of what it considers true science or this was a fraud. I'd still call it a fraud because I think the scientific community is really a lot smarter than that. They'll jump on anything that plays along with their own beliefs and will accept false findings just to promote their beliefs. If you don't accept that then I guess all that's left is to just call them inept. Whatever label you wish to give it really doesn't matter to me because it all means the same thing to me.

As for the rest, well they were all, as far as I know, accepted by the scientific community at one time as credible or true. Whatever happened to proving their findings before publishing them? Doesn't the very term science imply that?

 

[gluadys]

More skeletons in the closet than missing links.

Have a look at this link for some more of Haeckel's fairy stories:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/haeckel.asp

But the allegation was of "countless frauds", not of skeletons in the closet or fairy tales.

How many times have we shown that the peppered moths story is not evidence for evolution and demonstrated that the claims made about the moths have been thoroughtly discredited, and yet it persists to be used by TE's.

You have never shown this.

Which of the following claims have been discredited?

1. The peppered moth exists in two forms, one light and one dark.
2. Prior to the industrial revolution, the dark form was a prized collector's item due to its rarity--less than 5% of the total pepper moth population.
3. During the industrial revolution the dark variety became much more common in regions of heavy industrialization, reaching at peak 95% of the affected population.
4. Since pollution controls have been established, the occurence of the dark form has been decreasing.
5. Dark colour provides better camouflage on soot-blackened trees, while light colour provides better camouflage on non-blackened trees.
6. A major predator of the moths in daylight hours are birds.
7. Birds are more likely to find and eat moths without camouflage rather than those which are well camouflaged.
8. Selective bird predation on non-camouflaged moths tends to make the non-camouflaged form rarer in each generation.

I would be very interested in knowing which of these statements has been discredited and how.

 

[gluadys]

Maybe you and other evolutionists believe that the scientist Osborne who actually thought a pigs tooth was 'Nebraska Man', a transitional form that even had drawings published and was given a "scientific name" made an honest mistake. A mistake, by the way, that took the scientific community 5 years to disprove.

It certainly was not fraud. There was no attempt at deceit. Osborne never claimed the tooth was human, although he did think it was from a higher primate. But both he and every other scientist associated with it agreed that a proper identification could not be make without further evidence. The reason it took five years to come to a conclusive decision, is that the further evidence was not discovered for five years.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

This either means that the scientific community, in order for it to take this "find" so seriously, has extremely low standards of what it considers true science or this was a fraud.

On the contrary it shows just what we expect of scientists. Not one scientist made a positive claim that the tooth was human. Even the most enthusiastic proponent of a human identification agreed it was not possible to do more than speculate until a positive identification could be made. The drawing was clearly labelled as imaginative and never had any scientific standing. And when the needed evidence showed up and the tooth was correctly identified as from a peccary, this was promptly publicized and the tooth reclassified.

I see no evidence of either low standards or fraud in this history. A tentative identification was made that the tooth was primate (not human), but held, even by Osburne himself, to be speculative pending new evidence. And when new evidence showed the true derivation of the tooth, the scientific community acted quickly to re-classify it, and to publicize the new evidence and the new identification of the tooth.

What else would you expect them to do, either in 1922 or in 1927?

As for the rest, well they were all, as far as I know, accepted by the scientific community at one time as credible or true.

Many of them are still accepted as credible because they are. Orce "man" is currently in the same position as Nebraska man before 1927. No one can positively identify these remains as human because there are too few fragments to establish what it is. There is no attempt to deceive here.

The Ota Benga incident was fuelled by a faulty understanding of evolution, but again, was not fraud, because there was no intent to deceive.

Java Man, the peppered moth study and Lucy are all still accepted as sound scientific discoveries.

And you have not identified what you mean by referring to Brontosaurus (now named Apatosaurus) and Neandertal man as fraudulent.

Even if the current scientific understanding of these is eventually proved wrong, none would be frauds as none have been presented with an intent to deceive.

Whatever happened to proving their findings before publishing them? Doesn't the very term science imply that?

No, not at all. Scientists do not attempt to prove their ideas. They attempt to show that there is evidence which supports their ideas and no evidence which falsifies them. They attempt to show that the theory they offer is the best explanation of their observations. They offer their findings in order for them to be scrutinized and their weaknesses pointed out. This leads to further testing of the ideas and further scrutinizing of the results and further debates about what the evidence implies.

Because science rests on evidence, and because we don't have all the evidence, science cannot prove any theory. In principle, every theory could be overturned by new evidence. In practice, some theories have such strong, and multi-faceted lines of evidence supporting them, that scientists have a high degree of confidence in their correctness. Evolution is one of these.