Most people can show creationism as false based purely on the evidence. It really does not take a degree to see the beauty of evolution backed by more scientific fact than could ever be contained in one part of one chapter of one book that has two conflicting versions of the same story. Yet there is one even more significant difference in the joke that is creationism. It is one that creationists love to point out, not realizing or accepting the problems it creates for their beloved theory which is actually two theories.
Science, as everyone knows is self correcting. In this regard it is entirely plausible that in some scientific article their could be a solitary bad idea buried behind 99.9 % good solid facts. This bad idea however does not make the entirety of the study incorrect, it just means that a bad idea exists that needs to be corrected or scrapped. Also, most often than not, the original findings stand with the bad idea gone as these bad ideas are usually related to a faulty mechanism for example.
However, creationists see this bad idea in a different sense. They will grasp onto this bad idea and then declare the whole study irrelevant.They do this not realizing that there own arguments are based on bad ideas. Bad ideas which they continually and deceitfully continue to support without any evidence.
So simply put, the difference between science and creationism is this.
Science may have one bad idea buried behind 99.9 % good facts. Creationism has 99.9 % bad ideas supported by a book that already has two versions of the same argument. It is for this reason that its more difficult to debunk any creationist argument than a simple scientific bad idea. Each creationist argument takes a book to discredit, in comparison a solitary bad idea in a scientific manuscript can get discredited with one well written page. This is simply put why Creationism is not even close to a credible science.