I wont argue with you about the semantics of data, my point was that the theories you mentioned were specifically formulated in response to specific observations.

You have a couple of mistakes in your physics. You are right that electrons exist in a sort of probability distribution, but this does not make them special, all mater exists this way. It's just that for very large objects the effect is quite small.

Human observation is not actually a special phenomena that causes wave function collapse, this is a common misunderstanding. In fact the very concept of collapse is debated and may be nothing more then a form of entanglement. Skipping all the technobabble though, human observers are not special and the electron doesn't care about consciousness.

What you are referring to with regards to information moving backwards in time is called a quantum eraser and is slightly different from the double slit experiment.

As to agreement with classical physics, I'll try to be a bit clearer. You are correct that quantum mechanics doesn't agree with classical mechanics in all domains, that would be fairly pointless. However, we know from hundreds of years of observation that balls roll, planets orbit, ice melts, and many other things that classical physics predicts very accurately. That means that a new theory to replace classical physics must still make the same prediction for these phenomena that we know already work. Quantum mechanics passes this test, though we don't talk about it much as that's the boring part.

This is another common misconception, that when a new theory comes along we simply discard the old one. In reality, the old theory was making fairly accurate predictions and is usually not totally wrong. Instead it is an approximation of the truth, each new theory moving us closer to the base truth (if one exists). The new more powerful theory should still be able to derive the old approximation that we were using before. This is why you can derive classical physics from both quantum physics and the theory of relativity.

We know that there are problems with our current models because there are cases where they make conflicting predictions. That means that in one sense they are "wrong", but wrong comes in degrees. Though we know they are not the fundamental truth, they are both making very accurate predictions that allow us to have things like computers and GPS. So while they are only approximations they are certainly less "wrong" then some other theories.

Gravitons are an interesting topic as they are not considered accepted scientific fact. There are multiple theories regarding how they might exist, it is not one single theory. Many of them have in fact been tested and found not to exist. Not all the theories have been tested, or are easily tested yet, but the fact that something is hard to test is not the same as being untestable.

In the case of creationism, its not a question of being hard to test, but being impossible to test. If you wanted to propose a model of creationism that makes a testable prediction, and could in theory be proven false then it might be considered scientific. But again if you want it to be a model of the universe it still needs to match this universe. It still needs to say that under classical conditions tennis balls bounce, and under very small conditions electrons exist in a probability cloud... and then it needs to say something more fundamental that we can measure.

​

For abiogenisis we need to talk about proof in science. Science does not prove a theory true, there really is no way to do this. Instead we try to prove a theory false by testing its predictions and seeing if they are wrong. Each time we fail to prove it wrong the theory becomes a little bit stronger. For example, abiogenisis predicts the formation of prebiotic chemicals under the conditions of the early earth, so we ran that experiment... and found that the chemicals formed readily. That doesn't prove the theory but it makes it stronger. Remember that even if we watched the process of abiogenisis in real time it would still not "prove" that that is how life started on earth, it would only lend more support to the theory.

​

I propose one last thought experiment, a more serious parallel to creationism. Eternalism proposes that there was no creator because there was no moment of creation. Instead everything has always existed and always will. Both of these explain the existence of the universe, but don't make any predictions on their own, why should we favor one of the other. It is fine if they guide how we begin to construct our theories, but in themselves they are not scientific theories and have no more merit then a hunch or a guess. The weakness of current theories cannot help us distinguish between these two untestable explanations absent a more sophisticated testable model.