Skip to content

Creation Ministry provides the science and Scripture of the Genesis creation and global flood

  • Home
  • The Book
    • Preface
    • Gravity
    • The Effects of Weaker Gravity on Life
    • The Canopy of Salt Water
    • Climate
    • Oxygen Concentration
    • Land Was More Plentiful in the Past
    • Meteors, Asteroids, and Comets
    • Earth’s Spin at Origins
    • The Flood
    • No Deserts before the Flood
    • Seven-Day Creation Versus Seven-Eon Creation
  • Study Guides
  • Recordings
    • What Happened to the Dinosaurs?
    • How Does Carbon 14 Dating Work?
    • Was there a Global Flood?
    • How old is the earth?
    • Transitional fossils, Truth or Fiction?
    • Were the Days of Creation literal or figurative?
    • Were the Days of Creation 24 hours?
    • How Did God Create Matter?
    • Dr. Troy Lawrence Appeared on Daniel Ott’s, The Edge
    • Dr. Walter Brown interviewed by Larry Wessels
    • Dr. Troy Lawrence interviewed by George Noory on Coast to Coast
    • Kent Hovind vs Michael Shermer
  • About
    • CreationMinistry.org
    • Dr. Troy Lawrence’s Biography
    • From Dr. Lawrence’s Desk
    • Statement of Faith
  • Creation Vs Evolution
    • Evolution Creation
      • Movie Review: First Man
      • Natural Selection
      • Were The Days Of Creation 24 Hours Long?
      • Does Isaiah 40:22 Say The Earth Is A Ball?
      • Was Genesis 7 A Global Flood Or A Local Flood?
      • How Dangerous is Evolution to Salvation?
      • The Lie of Evolution with the Sclera
      • What is the Age of a Spiral Galaxy?
      • Transitional Fossils
      • Homo naledi
      • Australopithecus boisei
      • How millions of years changed to thousands
      • Circular Reasoning of Deep Time
      • The amazing diversity, beauty, and enigmatic genome of Diatoms
      • Origin of the Laws and Constants in the Universe
      • Circular Reasoning
      • Homo naledi
      • Australopithecus boisei
      • Genetically identical twins – but not so identical traits
      • How millions of years changed to thousands
      • How to Debunk Evolution
      • How to Debunk Evolution
      • Origin of the Laws and Constants in the Universe
      • Transitional Fossils
      • Seven things Darwin didn’t tell you
      • The amazing diversity, beauty, and enigmatic genome of Diatoms
      • The End Product of Evolution by Bill Nye
      • The End Product of Evolution by Bill Nye
      • The existing species concept called into question
      • There are no mechanisms for macroevolution
      • There are no mechanisms for macroevolution
      • Trust in GOD
      • The spin of the Earth is slowing
      • Evolution Debunked
  • Contact

How to debunk the billions of years required by evolutionists.

Evolution requires hundreds of millions of years to allegedly have enough time for creatures to change kinds (evolve). Thus, when their pseudo-evidence is debunked, then they are exposed as believing in error. One bit of pseudo-evidence they routinely cite is the many layers of the crust. They'll explain that the layers deposited over 100,000 to million years for each layer. And for this reason, the many layers represent hundreds of millions of years. This is wrong for several reasons: 1. When soil is deposited by the slow natural uniformitarian process, it doesn't exclusively deposit only sand for 100,000 years, then limestone for the next million years, then mud with biomass for a million years, then mud without biomass for a million years, and so forth. No, all the soil sediment is mixed together. But when we look at the crust of the earth, the soil is in layers and segregated. This proves that the soil was once mixed together in a global flood, then as the soil settled, it settled according to density and formed layers. We can test this by mixing soil in water, then let it settle. 100% of the time the soil will settle in layers based on its density. Therefore, the layers of the crust is proof positive that the soil came quickly, was mixed together in a global flood, and then settled according to density. Based on the scientific method, we are able to observe that the Bible's global Flood matches perfectly with the empirical data of the soil in the crust, and that the slow deposit hypothesis that evolutionists use (uniformitarian) is incongruous with the observable evidence. Furthermore, we can test that soil settles in water in layers, just as the Biblical Flood caused, and each test testifies against the old age belief required to support evolution. 2. Meteorites usually get burned up in the atmosphere. However, roughly ~50,000 meteorites hit Earth each year. But did you know that there are no meteorites found in the lower layers of the crust. If evolutionary geologists are correct, and each layer is estimated to be 100,000 to million years old, then there should be ~5 billion meteorites per layer. Therefore, either no meteorites hit the earth for 100s of millions of years, or the layers of the crust came quickly from the global Flood of Genesis. The only logical conclusion is that the soil came quickly, and for this reason alone, there is not enough time for evolution. 3. There are no erosion marks between each layer. The layers are uniformly deposited without the usual erosion marks that comes from rain. Thus, either there was no rain on the earth while each layer was slowly being deposited over millions of years, or the layers came quickly from the catastrophic Flood of Genesis and the soil settled in layers according to their density. And for this reason, the soil was deposited quickly to account for no erosion marks from rain. That is, the Genesis catastrophic Flood. 4. Polystrata petrification and fossilization. There are observable evidences of petrified trees that transcend what evolutionary geologist call millions of years. No tree will wait around for the layers to slowly accumulate. Once the first layer comes, the tree will die and decay to dust before the second layer could finish. Thus, each petrified tree transcending through multiple layers represents that the soil came quickly, not over millions of years. And it's even worse considering the fragile marine life found transcending through multiple layers. This is proof positive that the layers came quickly from the Global flood and settled around the tree or fish. 5. We observe looking at the crust that there are examples of many layers that have bended from tectonic plates colliding. However, the bends in the layers represents that the soil was hot, malleable, and not hard as seen today. This evidence stands against the slow deposit belief because of the lack of cracks in the layers, and the visible bending of the layers. This supports the layers came quickly and settled while being warm from the catastrophic global flood. And not cold over millions of years. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the slow deposit hypothesis of evolution's uniformitarian theory is completely in error, and the Bible's catastrophic global Flood is in perfect harmony with science and best explains the observable evidence. This is a summary of a couple of pages in my book that is 420 pages. wpbeginner'/> http://creationministry.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/interbedding-grand-canyon.jpg http://creationministry.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/foldedlayers.jpg http://creationministry.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/14494791.jpg.crop_display.jpg http://creationministry.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/tennpoly-viss.jpg</div> </aside> </div><!-- .widget-area --> </div><!-- .secondary --> </div><!-- .sidebar --> <div id=

Why Two Pokies With the Same RTP Can Feel Completely Different

Content

  • RTP Only Tells Part of the Story
  • The Volatility Factor
  • Hit Frequency and Win Size
  • The Role of Bonus Features
  • Why It Matters for Your Bankroll
  • Choosing the Right Feel
  • The Bigger Picture

Two slot machines side by side showing contrasting win patterns

You sit down at two different pokies, check the information screens, and notice they both advertise the same return-to-player percentage. Logic might suggest they should feel similar to play, yet within a few minutes the experiences could not be more different. One trickles out small wins almost constantly, while the other swallows your balance for ages before threatening a big payout. This puzzle confuses a lot of players, and the answer lies in factors that RTP alone never captures. In this article we will unpack exactly why two games with identical RTP can deliver wildly different sessions.

RTP Only Tells Part of the Story

Return-to-player is a single number describing how much a game pays back over an enormous span of spins. What it does not describe is how that money is distributed. The same ninety-six per cent could be delivered through countless tiny wins, a handful of medium ones, or one colossal jackpot that almost nobody ever sees. RTP is the total, but the shape of the payouts is left entirely unspecified. That missing detail, the distribution of wins, is precisely what makes two equally generous games feel like opposites in practice.

The Volatility Factor

The biggest driver of this difference is volatility. A low-volatility pokie spreads its RTP across frequent small wins, producing a smooth and forgiving session where your balance moves gently. A high-volatility pokie concentrates the same RTP into rare large wins, creating long droughts followed by occasional spikes. Because both can hit the same long-term percentage, the only thing separating them is how lumpy or smooth the payouts are. Volatility is the hidden dial that two identical RTP figures can be set to very differently.

Hit Frequency and Win Size

Two related ideas help explain the feel of a game. Hit frequency is how often any win lands at all, while average win size is how big those wins tend to be. A game can have a high hit frequency with small wins, making it feel busy and steady, or a low hit frequency with big wins, making it feel tense and dramatic. RTP says nothing about either of these on its own. Two games at the same RTP can sit at opposite ends of both scales, which is why one feels lively and the other feels punishing.

The Role of Bonus Features

Where a game stores its value matters enormously. Some pokies pay out steadily through the base game, so you feel regular returns as you spin. Others lock a large share of their RTP inside free-spin rounds or jackpots, meaning the base game feels stingy until you trigger the feature. If most of the return lives in a bonus you rarely reach, long stretches of ordinary play can feel cold even though the overall RTP is healthy. This concentration of value is a major reason for differing feel.

Seeing this contrast for yourself is easy when you play a broad range at a spanian online casino that publishes both RTP and volatility for each title. Players who enjoy spanian pokies quickly learn that two games with matching RTP can be poles apart, and a well-organised spanian casino helps by labelling volatility so you can pick the feel you want. Browsing the wider catalogue of spanian slots lets you line up a smooth low-volatility title next to a swingy high-volatility one and experience the difference directly. That clarity supports sensible spanian gambling, because you can choose a game whose rhythm matches your mood and budget rather than relying on RTP alone.

Why It Matters for Your Bankroll

Understanding this difference is not just academic, because it directly affects how long your money lasts and how the session feels emotionally. A high-volatility game at the same RTP can chew through a budget far faster in the short term, even though the long-term return is identical, simply because the big wins that balance the maths arrive so rarely. If you choose a swingy game without adjusting your stake, you may run out before the good moments come. Matching volatility to your bankroll is therefore essential.

Choosing the Right Feel

The practical lesson is to look beyond RTP when picking a game. If you want a long, relaxed session, seek out low-volatility titles where the frequent small wins keep you in the action. If you crave the thrill of chasing something large and can stomach the dry spells, a high-volatility game delivers that intensity. Knowing your own preference, and reading the volatility rating alongside the RTP, lets you select a game that will actually feel the way you want it to.

The Bigger Picture

RTP is a useful figure, but it is only one ingredient in the recipe that determines how a pokie plays. Volatility, hit frequency, average win size, and where the value is stored all combine to shape the experience, and none of them appear in that single percentage. This is why two games can share the same RTP and yet feel like completely different worlds. The takeaway is simple. Treat RTP as a starting point, then look at volatility and feature structure to understand how a game will really treat you, and choose accordingly to keep your sessions both enjoyable and within your means.

Posted on June 23, 2022June 10, 2026Author Tomi AaltoCategories Evolution Creation

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: E-Wallet Casinos: Fast, Secure Payments for US Players
Next Next post: The Best Electronic Data Capture EDC Systems in 2025
Proudly powered by WordPress