No way to keep up, as I was away doing a craft show all weekend, and monitoring repairs to my house for the last 3 weeks... there were several posts that I ought to reply to... but I can't imagine finding the time these days.

So...

"Doing a Bill D"

I'm flattered...I think... to have an entire method named for me. I do suspect it is a very localized technique used in a very specific set of circumstances, but fame is fleeting and I've already had 10 minutes of my 15.
----------------------------

So, Pete... you say: "The past is gone, and the data left behind is subject to interpretation. Historical science cannot be verified conclusively either way."

The first sentence is essentially a tautology and tells us nothing significant. (example... when you look at the moon, you don't **conclusively** know it is still there, as it takes several minutes for the reflected light to reach us... and you 'know' is that it was there several minutes ago. We can, however infer that is probably still there.)
   Now, the 2nd sentence is either true or false depending on how you read it. But is IS just plain misleading. Just as we may infer something about the status of the moon from repeated observations, we may also infer things about the past based on testing and comparisons to what we see today. The evidence OF the past is still there, and much of it is way easier to get data about than the moon. Geology has all sorts of things we can look at... like this folded rock layer. Surely we can infer a few things about it just from looking... and more by chemistry and radio-carbon dating. We KNOW that it takes forces to do that to a bunch of rocks, and it isn't done in a short period of time. "Historical science" can be verified in ways that are useful and... the important point.... predictive. We can use data from historical science to tell us how to do...or not do.. relevant things in our lives. In fact Pete, YOU use it and depend on it everyday... except when you find some of it **seems** to be at odds with something you 'believe' about the past that is even harder to verify!
You use selective dependence about various scientific data and deny perfectly good science...often by referring to dubious science.

   There is no reason you cannot have a basic concept of Creation and 'believe' that a God started it all.... but you gotta use the brain the God gave you to discern the complex stuff that has happened in the universe after God gave it it a kick-start.