Apparently you are unable to provide a reasonable non-contradictory explanation for what you believe.
What mechanism do you use to explain it?
Don't think one is necessary?
Creationists don't understand much about evolution - other than they are “agin it!”, but when called upon specifics they either clam up like cowards or admit to accepting ‘some part’ of evolutionary theory.
So which parts do YOU accept?
I really shouldn’t be so hard on you,
considering I was in your position but 4-5 years ago
before I started actually studying the “other” side with an open mind.
Me, 5 yrs ago:
“They can’t ACTUALLY believe that the earth is not billions of years old! The ‘science’ is conclusive that it is!”
“They can’t ACTUALLY believe that all the life we observe didn’t evolve, the ‘science’ is settled!” [like global warming]
One thing you must understand is that “Creationists”
have been through the same education/indoctrination you’ve been
through in “public education”, but they’ve gone BEYOND
that “education” to study what isn’t allowed to be presented
in schools. Consider this especially with the creation scientists with their PhDs in various disciplines including archeology, astrophysics, geology, archeology, etc. They went through the same Darwinist schools that the hardcore evos did - then they studied beyond that which was presented.
You state that there is a “contradiction” between accepting what you insist on calling “evolution” when it comes to change and adaptation within boundaries, and the cross boundary goo-to-you “evolution”. Can you see the difference, or are your base assumptions too engrained to get past?
“Creationists” wouldn’t get so “hung up” on the term “evolution” if it wasn’t consistently used to conflate both “observed change in organisms” and the extrapolation into “this must mean that all life as we see it came from a single common ancestor”.
That’s why we separate the terms into “adaptation” for the former, and “evolution” for the latter, in order to provide more precise, non-conflated definitions. The conflation is ubiquitous, so we’ll continue to provide the more precise, separate definitions. Get used to it. Get over it.
The “Creationist” observation of change in organisms is the same observation of the change in organisms of Darwinists, without the necessary extrapolation into “goo-to-you” which has the problem of abiogenesis of lifeless chemicals to some sort of reproducting lifeform as a starting point.
I will explain this ONCE, so that you have no further excuse to beat the hell out of a strawman you erect to represent your opposites’ position.
The “mechanism” description, which you cling to as your grasp on some superior understanding over us benighted “creationists”, is the SAME “mechanism” for adaptation to environmental pressures. The difference is in the source of the information necessary for this adaptive ability. The source is in the DNA of the original created creatureS, plural. That’s the key - it was CREATED IN the original creatures, not added to.
There is not a SINGLE common ancestor, which is the extrapolation inherent in Darwinism. Mutation is not the source of new information. The wonder of the DNA of creatures is the ability to REPAIR mutations, which would be a detriment to “evolving” if that were the source of new information necessary to adapt to environmental pressures. And observed creatures in which this repair mechanism is suppressed or non-functional meet an ugly end, not an advancement.
Evos have to assume that this information is ADDED through mutation in order to give the open-ended ability to change from molecules-to-man.
Creation scientists observe the same changes in organisms, which is better explained by assuming that the information necessary to produce, for example, a wolf, fox, coyote, dachshund, and mastiff, were all in the original created “dog”.
Now, that’s a 10,000 ft view, where we have a common observation of the adaptation of creatures to environments, but a different assumption as to where the information required for this adaptation comes from.
If you seek further understanding, go read the material from various PhD holding creation scientists who give substantial evidence for their conclusions. However, you may prefer to ignore this, and continue to argue from ignorance of the ACTUAL creationist viewpoint, if it makes you feel superior to do so.
I feel this to be an adequate overall explanation of the differences of viewpoint, so any further “strawmanning” on your part will be taken to be simple dishonesty.