When one performs a "fact check" of evolution against the bible, evolutionism fails—despite what those who believe in what the "science" of evolutionism teach.
[MOD HAT: This is getting dangerously close violating the Rules & Guidelines (e.g., rule 2.2: "Such things as ... misrepresenting, ... are strictly prohibited"). Members should give due diligence to what they write before posting it. And let's make every effort to represent our opponents accurately.]
First, an attempt to fact-check evolution against Scripture would be a category mistake, as the former pertains to natural history and the latter pertains to redemptive history. There is a reason why Scripture doesn't mention the Yangshao, for example, and it's not because they didn't exist. (We know they did.) It's because Scripture has a very specific focus—namely, Christ Jesus. It is the Word of God in written form.
Second,
evolutionism is not the scientific theory of
evolution; those are two different things, indicated by the obvious suffix "-ism." Evolutionism is not science, it's a philosophical world-view—usually referring to metaphysical naturalism—that is antithetical to biblical Christianity. As Tim Keller noted 15 years ago, "Belief in evolution as a biological process is not the same as belief in evolution as a world-view."
The same science that brings you [evolution] but under a different "occupation" tells us a man who died on a Roman cross ... could not possibly have risen from the dead on day three.
You are conflating two entirely different domains of inference and calling them the same "science." That is a gross misrepresentation, one that I sincerely hope is the product of ignorance. In other words, I hope you're not misrepresenting on purpose (i.e., intentionally misleading).
The disciplines are not parallel. Evolution deals with ordinary, repeatable processes in the created order. The resurrection is a singular, non-repeatable act of divine power. Methodological science deals only with empirical causes, so of course it won't infer a miracle. That is simply a limitation of method. Rejecting a miracle because science cannot describe it would be like rejecting music because mathematics can't hear it.
Ordinary providence governs evolutionary processes. Extraordinary providence governs miracles. Science can describe the former but is methodologically blind to the latter.
If you restrict all explanations to natural causes, then by definition any miracle is excluded before you ever examine the evidence. That isn't science, that is metaphysical naturalism (not to mention question-begging). The same limitation would "rule out" the virgin birth or the exodus. It explains nothing; it simply prohibits the conclusion.
The book of Genesis tells us how mankind fell, received a sin nature, and the need for Christ Jesus to die and resurrect to atone for the sin of mankind.
And that is something that a lot of evolution supporters believe. They are called Christians, most of whom (a) believe what you just said and (b) accept evolution.
Let's represent our opponents accurately and honestly, please.
Yet the same "scientist" claim the resurrection of Jesus didn't happen.
Maybe, but that claim is a philosophical prejudice, not a scientific conclusion—a crucial and significant distinction.
The problem or issue easily becomes, "When did mankind fall into sin? How did mankind fall into sin?"
Since we both think Genesis is pretty clear on that, this is a distraction from the issue.
[The Bible tells us when and how mankind fell], and the theo-evo crowd says, "The Bible doesn't explain how. It couldn't have happened that way, so it but be allegorical."
I am the only member of the "theo-evo crowd" here, so interact with what my claims and arguments assert. Don't gesture vaguely at what some fictional person says.
You even said it in an above reply to @JesusFan.
No, I did not. This is a rule-violation (2.2).
