Creationism begins its discussion of life about 6000 year ago. Evolution begins its discussion, further back in time, with a different Adam called replicators. Neither begin at the true origin which are simple chemicals. The theory of evolution starts late, falling short of the logical zero point, biasing the analysis. It depends on a miracle, an alien invasion, or some random comet, to get this starting point; origin of faith. Evolution deals with the changes observed within life. Using the current definition of life, replicators are a reasonable place to start. However, the definition of life does not include water even though observations, for years, show life stops down to enzymes if the water is removed. The rebuttal is the argument of alternate life, which has not been shown to be possible in the lab; faith based rebuttal. The organics alone will not allow life to appear, yet the biased definition leaves that out. There are at least flaws in the foundation premises; evolution is built on a swamp using a prefab trailer. In Creation, they define their origin with Adam being their first human replicator who also appears without the requirement of logic or proof. Evolution does the same thing with its replicator Adam. The bottom line is any model that can start earlier than Adam or Replicator Adam is a better science model. Evolution is science, but is is made invalid by being built on flawed foundation premises; religious foundation. What is the logic for the formation of replicators? Do these appear like magic with the God of Chaos making this all possible? Or did an alien race, with the power of gods, plant the replicators? Let us ague foundation premises to show the flaws. I begin with water, which other areas of science can show was already on the earth. I don'y need the God of chaos for the faithful. This true origin is considered alien in the religion of evolution since it follows logically yet lacks faith in the replicator Adam.