Because Evolution is so difficult to defend once committed to, Evolutionists like to avoid commitment to it by redefining as "change over time". But there's a problem with this definition. Specifically, if Evolution really is just change over time, one can easily be an Evolutionist and a Creationist without changing, or otherwise disbelieving, a single word in Genesis. The Bible does not teach the fixity of species, and indeed Creationists like Edward Blyth beat Darwin to the theory of natural selection long ago. Therefore, we are 100% free, and are indeed wise to believe in change over time.
The fact that species change is something that would have been immediately obvious, no more than a few generations after the first. The Bible itself describes how radically different Jacob and Esau were despite being twins, and it's highly unlikely Cain was a carbon copy of Adam. Furthermore, the fact that species change is also used by most Creation ministries to show that the number of animals required on the ark was significantly less than is often assumed. We have large numbers of species, we have far fewer numbers of "Baramin".
So, clearly, Evolution is something a little bit different than just "change over time". The amount of change isn't what differentiates Creationists from Evolutionists, it is the type of change that is disputed. It's one thing to look at two finches and assume "hey, these finches probably share a common ancestor!" It's another thing entirely to look at those same finches and assume "hey, those finches clearly share a common dinosaur ancestor about 65 million years ago."
The former is a reasonable assumption, and we observe these kinds of changes within human lifetimes. The latter is pure religion, with no logic behind it other than "I don't want to glorify our creator, therefore I will come up with an alternative way to explain the creation". There is no science there. No one saw birds evolve from dinosaurs. Our observation has always been that birds are descended from birds, dinosaurs are descended dinosaurs, and no evidence suggests this was ever not the case.
Of course, if Evolutionists are really so afraid to commit to their own dogmas that they must resort to this definition, so be it. The fact is, they still believe in all sorts of ridiculous theories which are compatible with neither scripture nor with science. If you want to claim Evolution is just change over time, fine, I believe in Evolution. You, however, believe the world is millions of years old. Prove it. You believe life arose spontaneously. Prove it. You believe human beings, rather than being descended from the first human couple roughly 6,000 years ago, are descended from a magical, self-created microbe, from which all other living beings on this planet are also descended. For this, you have so little evidence that you have to dance around these beliefs by lumping them in with more reasonable beliefs under the umbrella of "change over time". By doing this, you are actually admitting your lack of faith in Evolution.
May I present a better worldview? One that doesn't need to hide in ambiguity. We don't need to hide our beliefs by defining Christianity as just "some dude got crucified at some point". No, we can stand very firmly on both definitions and creeds, for which we can give ample evidence. We may not be able to go back in time and show you God breathing life into a mound of dirt, but this much we can do: We can show that many people witnessed Jesus Christ alive and well after His death, and they themselves were willing to die for that testimony. If you believe as they told you, namely that Jesus is Lord, and God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.