TE's don't throw out the bible AT ALL. Again, notice that YOU are stating that if evolution and Christianity are compatible then the Bible is a complete lie. It is YOU who are saying that the bible is a complete lie, not scientists or those that accept evolution AND are Christian.
I accept evolution, I am a Christian, I don't accept that the bible is a complete lie, those are your words. Now, if you convince someone that what you say is true, of course they will reject God when they find out that evolution is valid and that YEC is false. You can't blame that on evolution or science, the blame clearly lies on the ones who TOLD THEM THAT IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE, THE BIBLE IS A LIE.
I have faith that my salvation is not an allegory. I have faith that Christ is who the Bible says he is. Accepting evolution does nothing to prevent me from having this faith. I don't believe the lie you and others are telling. Evolution and Christianity are compatible. Just ask all those scientists who accept it.
It is interesting that you mentioned ID in an earlier post. Here is a quote from William Dembski, an often cited, proponent of ID. Is he doing Satan's work?
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idcomingclean.htm
"First off, let me come clean about my own views on intelligent design. Am I a creationist?
As a Christian, I am a theist and believe that God created the world. For hardcore atheists this is enough to classify me as a creationist. Yet for most people, creationism is not identical with the Christian doctrine of creation, or for that matter with the doctrine of creation as understood by Judaism or Islam.
By creationism one typically understands what is also called "young earth creationism," and what advocates of that position refer to alternately as "creation science" or "scientific creationism." According to this view the opening chapters of Genesis are to be read literally as a scientifically accurate account of the world's origin and subsequent formation. What's more, it is the creation scientist's task to harmonize science with Scripture. Given this account of creationism,
am I a creationist? No. I do not regard
Genesis as a scientific text. I have no vested theological interest in the age of the earth or the universe.
I find the arguments of geologists persuasive when they argue for an earth that is 4.5 billion years old. What's more, I find the arguments of astrophysicists persuasive when they argue for a universe that is approximately 14 billion years old.
I believe they got it right. Even so, I refuse to be dogmatic here. I'm willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Yet to date
I've found none of the arguments for a young earth or a young universe convincing.
Nature, as far as I'm concerned, has an integrity that enables it to be understood without recourse to revelatory texts. That said, I believe that nature points beyond itself to a transcendent reality, and that that reality is simultaneously reflected in a different idiom by the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments."