What if both ideas are wrong?

What if the creationist and evolutionist ideas are both wrong?

that leaves aliens 

maybe aliens colonized the earth. but what if that is wrong too?

have any alternative theories in mind?

I do not. I am not talented enough. It's just that we are all living today and have lived for a certain amount of time and have had contact with people who have been living for longer or who lived longer and died. Beyond that we have buildings, books, and other artifacts that have dates on them. And then beyond that time gets fuzzier. The farther back in time, the more difficult it is to put exact dates on things. As we go farther, at face value we know less and less. In order to deal with the unknown we ask a lot of questions because part of being human is that we want to know as much as possible. So we come with different ideas to describe what we don't know. What if the answer to how we got here is simply that we do not know? What if that's all we'll ever know?

Well, the burden of proof is on you to put forth a better theory.

We went nowhere.

See, the thing is that I'm not asserting anything, I'm not saying anything is wrong, and I'm not trying to prove anything. All I'm saying is a "what if," and what I'm saying doesn't hold any weight. It's just an idea, and not one that I necessarily want other people to believe.

I'm not saying that none of the theories we already have are good.

You mean fundamentally wrong or has some little error here and there and need modifications?

You might as easily ask if we have the model of our solar system wrong or our understanding of gravity.

Evolution is a scientific theory well supported by evidence and is the foundation of Biology. So what in particular would you like to challenge?

I am going to assume that what is intended is the origin of life on Earth, rather than evolution, which is awfully well-evidenced. Let's see if I can think of a few conceivable options (conceivability isn't much of a bar):

(1) abiogenesis occurred by an as-yet-unknown chemical process (the difficulty of specifying which tbwp10 can tell us in great detail)
(2) a highly improbable set of quantum fluctuations occurred to enable life to begin.
(3) Aliens not composed of cells and whose own naturalistic genesis did not have the great difficulties our own has visited Earth and performed the necessary chemistry to get life started here on Earth.
(4) The laws of the universe every now and then, perhaps at long intervals and only in small regions, undergo "hiccups." This happened and allowed life to begin much more easily than might seem possible otherwise.
(5) A magic genie visited our universe, blinked life into existence, and then left again.
(6) A committee of designers outside our own spacetime created a universe befitting a committee, and a subcommittee decided to make a small change enabling life to begin on Earth by means going beyond ordinary chemistry.
(7) An intelligent designer playing a cruel joke created the universe and humanity a few thousand years ago, then made it look as though it were billions of years old and as though humanity and all other life on Earth had evolved--but left a clue that the naturalistic view was false in the manifest difficulties in abiogenesis.
(8) An intelligent designer designed a perfect universe with perfect life in it, but then handed the job of creation off to his apprentice, who bungled both jobs.
(9) The laws of physics were subtly different then and it was easy for life to start. (I note that we actually have some reason to think that the laws of physics were *not* different then, which is why I included the word "subtly.")

It’s less of a “I don’t support the theory of evolution” and more of just a moment of doubt.

That is exactly what I’m asking. What if everything we have learned to understand is wrong? And it’s more of a rhetorical question than it is an attempt to debunk anything. I support the theory of evolution and I believe understanding it has really helped us. It’s more about the feeling of a moment of doubt.

As a purely speculative "what if everything we learned is wrong," then we would have to modify our understanding.  Science actually employs such a "self-correcting" process, where conclusions are always tentative and can be modified and even overturned by new evidence.

PyriteDragon asked in post 13: "What if everything we have learned to understand is wrong?"

It's hard for that to happen. First, as time goes by, we make more and more observations and do so with greater and greater accuracy, so we have improved knowledge of the data. We also come up with better and better explanations. If explanation A is replaced by explanation B, explanation B has to get right everything explanation A got right (or virtually right, the way Newtonian physics gets a lot virtually right at ordinary speeds) *and more*. Theories therefore get better and better. That might be slightly oversimplifying, but basically, that's it: scientific understanding improves over time. 

Of course, if in fact I do not live in a physical world but am merely hallucinating it--OK, I could be getting it very wrong.

Surely there had to be times in the past when people challenged major assumptions that led to things that were groundbreaking. Darwin did that himself. What if there becomes a rising scientist born a few decades from now who revolutionizes the theory of evolution and shows and fixes huge faults in the overall idea? And then what if a few centuries after that people find that that was also very flawed? It appears to me that humans have mastered a lot of things, but what if it’s all an illusion? What if the mastery we have taken for granted isn’t true mastery?

What if it's an illusion?  What if it's not?  Either way, speculative musings don't get us very far

I don't think you'll ever hear professional scientists using that kind of language because they're quick to remind us that nothing is ever proven in science. Science is a tentative process that seeks to derive the most reasonable explanations for how natural systems function.

It took several centuries for Newton's model of gravity to be superceded by Relativity but even so, Newtonian physics is still highly accurate and used to send probes to the outer planets. I can't think of any theory or principle in science of the last century that has been completely overturned by a new discovery.

Geez, I sounded like one of those science deniers. Here's a video to show my younger self: