the fact that there is literally nothing I have written that could be construed as typically “creationist” in nature
Arguing natural selection is a tautology because survival of the fittest just means survival of those who make it, expressing skepticism at the existence of transitional forms/fossils and/or arguing evolution has failed to be vindicated by the lack of them, using the term "Darwinism" pejoratively to refer to common descent with modification as an explanation for biodiversity via natural processes like natural selection and mutation, arguing that intelligent direction has been
a priori rejected by said "Darwinists" due to illicit bias, and arguing that the structure of DNA indicates intelligence are all typically creationist in nature.
If you were to argue that you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution according to your acceptance of evolution within "strict limits" that also would fit within classical creationism. If you were to accept change within some ill-defined immutable borders creationists used to call "kinds" (some still do), even more so.
But hey, that's all a side show you choose to focus on. After all, simply because I brought up what is the typical creationist tactic here, that doesn't mean you need to go that route even if you have over and over followed creationist tactics in your replies. You just choose to focus on that label rather than address the point of the post for rather obvious reasons.
So by all means, explain how you defend this statement, "And, of course, this has been the ongoing problem for the past century and a half since Origin of the Species was first published. Initially, Darwin and his acolytes predicted that the fossil record would bear out the evidence of the transitional process so predicted. But it hasn’t! And so now we have been subjected to the various “predictions” or so-called “logical extrapolations” from the genetic relationships of all life forms," given the abundance of intermediate forms.
After you're done with that you can explain just exactly how you believe in evolution in any kind of sense that corresponds with how the term is used in biology. For all we know, this could be a coy way of saying you believe in the Mormon doctrine of eternal progression and that is an evolutionary concept. Which would be another way of saying you don't believe in/accept evolution. At the very beginning of this conversation you said you do not think humans evolved from other animals, so it is already clear you
don't believe in evolution unless you've had a recent change of heart, but feel free to clarify whatever it is you do think.