Creationism arguments are completely built upon style. Creationism itself is devoid of science and many of the debaters of creationism (at least the educated ones) knows this. They understand that any honest disucssion focused on one or two subjects will reveal how weak they are hence why creationists in such debates engage in shotguns or glipglosh tactics. All they have to do is to convince people that perhaps science is wrong. They don't actually have to address a single scientific point. There's a key reason why there is no creationist peer review: they know they won't stand up to actual science, hence why creationists play into a specific audience: the audience that is largely ignorant of how science works.
Go to teenage internet forums. You'll find creationist and you'll see them winning in many places for a key reason. Teens for the most part are scientific ignorant. They don't know any better. Creationists target ignorant audiences that they can manipulate. I've challenged a few creationists on forums to come here. Every single one of them refuses after getting a look. It's not about facts: it's about using style and emotion to convince people.
™ Version 4.2