There are several misunderstandings, but two stand out.
First, evolution is perceived as being the scientific position with real evidence from real scientists. Creation is perceived to be what religious people hold based on tradition and the Bible. This is no longer true (see this related question). Both positions are now based on observations of the natural world, i.e., science.
Second, the demonstration of micro-changes over time in organisms (for example, Galapagos finch beak size changes, or the peppered moth population changes) is pointed out to allegedly prove that macroevolution is true. However, microevolutionary changes (adaptations to environmental changes) don’t prove macroevolution unless successive transitions between them are also found in the fossil record (the missing links). For example, if intermediate fossils were found leading from invertebrates to fish (one kind of creature to another) it would support macroevolution. However, such has not been found.
