It has been my experience that people who are firm believers in creationism have absolutely no desire to hear or listen to any scientific facts supporting evolution. Their ears, minds and hearts are completely closed to any thoughts or ideas that support beliefs other than their own. Sadly, it is their choice to remain ignorant of the facts.
Creationism is a story, with no science to back it up. True, we are only are informed as our modern science has evolved, but the tools we have in front of us clearly show that creationism is not historically possible. Those who believe in creationism have no facts to back up their beliefs, therefore actively remaining ignorant of science.
I do believe that proponents of the creationism theory are actively choosing to remain ignorant regarding scientific facts regarding evolution. I believe it is important to fully investigate and understand both sides before making a decision and I feel that many people who favor creationism have failed to study evolution.
There has been proof found that shows how all living organisms came about. Even further down the line there is a lot of proof that shows humans originated from chimps, look at a baby chimp skull. The people who believe in creationism are completely ignoring the facts, and going off faith.
You can't argue with facts. Radio-carbon dating is a scientifically-accurate measure to date certain objects dug up from the Earth. As such, human bones and animal skeletons have been confirmed to be more than 6,000 years old. The 6,000 year mark is what creationists believe to be the age of the Earth. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, so creationists have some more thinking to do before they realize that the story of Genesis shouldn't be taken literally. Genesis is a great story written thousands of years ago by humans, not by God.
Lest we forget, evolution clearly does not have enough scientific evidence or else it would be publicly announced that it was no longer mere theory but plain scientific fact.
Creationism has also got a lot of scientific evidence to it, just in case you actually know nothing about it except what biased people who were raised from an evolutionary viewpoint have told you.
The point is, evolution is a loose sort of word. Macro evolution is what we immediately think of- one species eventually becoming another (if we take today's evolutionary perspective, one species diverging into two or more new ones), but in truth the only one we can prove is micro evolution- one species varying in phenotype and a little in genotype but still staying the same species.
Macro evolution has never been seen in action. The fossil record is sketchy at best and can't really be relied upon. Vestigial organs are an argument of the long gone past.
Micro evolution makes sense. Selection pressures cause a change within a species to adapt to a change in the environment, but not enough to make them become another species entirely.
Creationism says God created us with everything we need to survive in our environments. This is credited today- some animals can change their colour depending on season, there is enough genetic diversity within a species to allow it to adapt to small but significant selection pressures. However we have seen that large selection pressures (flooding, habitat destruction, etc) will not provoke adaptation but rather and more likely extinction, with a few surviving to either die later due to a genetic bottleneck/extinction vortex.
Evolutionism (macro) says "epigenetics is key". They believe that, given enough time and the right selection pressures, a species becomes no longer suited to its environment and therefore epigenetics and mutations (mutation is the elephant in the room for evolutionists btw) will cause that species to, over a long period of time during which the selection pressures do not fluctuate so much that the changing species becomes genetically confused, two or more new species will arise and those who did not become either of these species will die.
The thing is, ~99%mutations are harmful. They are a loss of information, not a gain, which makes sense if we consider that the universe is descending further into entropy as time continues. If mutations were beneficial, we would have to say that they aren't obeying the law of entropy. It only makes sense that everything becomes not more advantaged, but less so.
Macroevolution is supposed to take millions/hundreds of thousands of years. This is actually a huge time frame. If we consider that a change in selection pressures apparently causes divergent evolution, and how often selection pressures change, doesn't it make sense that during the time of evolution, those selection pressures might keep changing? And wouldn't those organisms already changing to suit the last selection pressures suddenly have to change their genetic course to suit the latest ones?