Most scientists rejected the big bang theory at first too - mostly because it was proving the Bible correct. Besides, as you well know, truth is not decided by majority opinion
No - it was not "rejected", and certainly not because of The Bible. Most scientists are pretty educated people, Best - it's only the uneducated cough like you cough who think a collection of Bronze Age fairtytales has anything to say about science. When the BB was first proposed, there were no observations (or only a few) to support it. When those observations were made, science changed it's mind. Science is good like that - religion (particularly your infantile brand) is spectacularly bad.
Dr Lisle's piece of crap research doesn't just have no supporting observations, it flies in the face of all that cosmology knows, which is quite a lot. The physics community laughed at him - or politely smirked behind their hands.
That's quite an accusation. I suppose you've got evidence for that, right? Not just that he's employed by them but that they hired him to lie for them
Dr Jason Lisle.
I never said he "lied" - I said he said what they wanted to hear. Whether that was because he's bloody useless or dishonest is not for me to say. I'll go with a bit of both.
But YECs generally are very dishonest. How many times did we catch you quote mining? How many times did you manipulate quotes? How many times were you PROVEN wrong and refused to admit it? If you're typical (and you are) then I stand by that. And you are Exhibit No. 1 
On the contrary. Remember that Christians believe they have a responsibility to God to be honest.....and how you must be making the baby Jesus cry, Best.
Atheists have no such objective moral code. If a Christian lies, we might rightly call her a hypocrite. But if an atheist lies we cannot criticize her because she is just doing whatever she feels is right at the time
Your stupidest, and most unsupported claim (other than our cohabitation with dinosaurs of course) is that morality is impossible unless it's objective.
No. I, personally, do what feels right at the time, yes - not just what's right for me, but what's right for everybody, on balance.
But I think I'd prefer not to listen to a morality lecture from someone who would let a baby starve to death rather than break a window and take some milk.
In fact, how's this for a syllogism:
Well, it's not one for a start. Bit crap at logic, aren't you?
#1 - Yes, I think under certain circumstances it's permissible to lie to protect others. (You, presumably would have ratted out Anne Frank?)
#2: Yes, I think religion can do enormous harm.
And your conclusion from this is that I (and my fellow atheists) are lying on this thread to protect others from harm?
Don't flatter yourself. I don't think anyone's in danger from harm here - MNers are pretty smart generally, and you are nowhere near as persuasive as you think you are.
And where have we lied, then?
(BTW: January is not an atheist. What's her motivation for highlighting your ludicrous misrepresentations of science? Could it just be that she's an honest person who accepts reality and bases her beliefs around it? Like, you know, rational people do).
Gutted you've not heard of TAG. We could have really got our teeth into that one. (It's the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. Look up Matt Slick & CARM).