I won't argue with you about that, that's what we learn in academy. That said, critically analyzing it, you'll see that most of your arguments are based on historical observation, not the actual "scientific" analysis of the language. In a nutshell, the definition of a creole is more related to the historical process behind it than the blind analysis of language. I've highlighted the interesting parts for you.
The bolded part is the "scientific" definition of a Creole: basically, a language with a lexicon from language A and grammar from language B. Can we all agree on that? Considering only that defintion we can very well say that French is a Latin-based Creole language with a Germanic grammatical system, can't we?
Let's check the first phrase of the Oaths of Strassbourg (the first French text):
English translation: For the love of God [...]
Old French: Pro Deo amur [...]
Modern French translation: Pour l'amour de Dieu [...]
C. Latin translation: Quia caritas Dei [...] / (if we use the word 'amor': Quia amoris Dei)
From this example you can see that the most important difference between Romance languages and Classical Latin is grammar, mostly due to the influence of Germanic substrate. It's also quite telling that linguistics agree that the Standard Average (Western) European sprachbund started to exist during the Middle Ages and, interestingly enough, SAE pretty much summarizes characteristics originate in Germanic grammar borrowed into most Western European languages.
That said, I don't disagree with the fact that the construction of Atlantic Creoles was a much quicker and dramatic event. However, I need also to point out that the main difference between Classical Latin and Romance is the grammatical influence of substrate languages (mostly Germanic). At the end of the day, where do you draw the line between a Creole and a Language? IMHO in history. I admit, however, that's a very personal point of view.
An interesting alternate history would've been if French, Spanish, et al, had inherited much more Germanic grammar on their Latin-based lexicon and preserved some older features:
1. simple past as the common past instead of present perfect; beber(to drink) would be commonly bebido, bebides, bebide, bebidemos, bebideis, bebiden in Spanish, for example, rather than having both imperfect and preterite
2. comparative/superlative with -ior- and -ism- infixed: rojo, rojoro, rojismo being red, redder, reddest
3. genitive endings ending in -s for named people at a minimum: Spanish: con Carlas auto "with Carla's car" rather than using "de" all the time; this may expand to 'es' but preserves a distinction in most cases between genitive and plural
4. Use the derived verbs from "esse" (ser, etre, etc) with verbs of motion, location, becoming like Germanic languages have done rather than 'stare' derivations: Spanish: soy andando; French: je suis marchant; soy andado and je suis marcheté for 'I have walked'
5. A more preserved derivation from 'habere' in the daughter languages: Spanish: habeo, habes, habe, habemos, habeis, haben; él habe un auto rojoro que mi 'he has a redder car than me' (pardon my grammar, it's been a few years)
6. Use 'habere' instead of 'tenere' and preserve the distinction between them of 'have, possess' and 'hold, grasp (but not own)'
7. Spanish filio and filia instead of hijo/hija and so on, preserving initial f- and middle -l- instead of changing to h- and -j-
8. Adopt and expand ablaut series from Germanic verbs onto Latin-origin verbs: salir, solo, saleno (type 6 strong verb ablaut); yo soy saleno/salido "I have departed" rather than yo salí
Unlikely, but as some kind of creole between the Goths and Latins or the Gauls, Franks, and Latins, that would've been a cool language to see.