Pete-It's hard to explain to you exactly why your explanation & definitions have problems. All I can say is that you DO break some basic rules in logic, reasoning and use of terminology. Even IF your basic beliefs about religion were true, you can't defend them reasonably that way..... which is one of my basic points. What you choose to **believe** in not subject to standard logic, proof or reason. You can be internally consistent starting from your premises, but the premises themselves must first be accepted.
The events written about in the Bible and the interpretation of them are only vaguely and partially subject to confirmation..... but even this contradicts your assertation that "... you can't test the past." Because SOME Biblical sites, people and events do conform with historical records and archeology has found some of the places mentioned, it shows that the past can be verified and understood to some extent. Just digging up an old beer bottle in your your yard tells you something!

And.... "...you bait and switch operative science with origins science". That is a very good example of shaky definition ... there is no such divide. There is either good science or bad science.... the scientific method is a specific way of looking at the world, and it takes lots of time and careful attention to detail to both understand it and to practice it.

   And... the 'watchmaker' metaphor is famous as a fallacious argument.
Paley directly confronted If you get all your background FROM creationist sites, you miss many, many years of explanations of just what is being discussed. (I'll confess that *I* had forgotten where the watchmaker metaphor cam from... but it was about the 3rd hit when I searched for it)

Pete.. belief is one thing. No one can tell you not to... but you MUST stay aware of the reason we use 'believe' instead of 'know'.