So spontaneous creation is working within parameters ?
Who set the parameters would be your follow-up question? I suppose you could put it that way. Have you done any reading of anything from Stephen Hawking or Lawrence M. Kraus? The science behind a lot of the theories (yes, theories) is easy to comprehend but nigh on impossible to prove.
The beauty of science is that for a theory to be accepted as fact, it must pass through the scientific method (reproducibility). Some of these theories haven't come even close to even being observed, let alone be reproducible in a lab, so it's impossible for anyone in our lifetime to say anything with athority. We simply do not know enough currently.
From the spontaneous appearance of subatomic particles from a vacuum which is referred to as quantum fluctuations, the fluctuations themselves cannot be directly observed, but their effects have been detected.
With space being part of the known universe, what was it that enabled the space which allowed the particle/antiparticle pairs to be formed out of energy? Once again, this is all unknown. And if the answer, as Stephen Hawking suggests, is that the total energy of the universe is zero, then what is really going on?
Zero energy claims are based on a preexisting understanding and acceptance of the Big Bang, so that's something where both creationists and sceptics must agree upon before proceeding. Assuming, for this discussion that we're at a point where the expanding universe model is accepted by all, where does that leave us?
Quantum gravity is one way to suggest that space could come into existence by nothing, and it's a key argument which Lawrence M. Kraus goes with in his book titled
A Universe from Nothing. The problem is we don't currently have a workable theory on quantum gravity, so that poses an issue.
Other theories suggest that we don't live in just one single universe, but rather our universe forms the basis of an infinite amount of universes; or a multiverse. This would explain how our universe, having been created 13.7 billion years ago, merely forms merely an infinitesimal speck in a not-yet observed multiverse which we form a part of.
There are so many things we don't yet know, only have theories of, and many theories don't have workable models to even try to prove or disprove. Scientific theories come about due to the evolution of aquired knowledge. They aren't fabricated from nothing. No scientific theory suggests our existence is all an accident, but at the same we're still only scratching the surface of explaining the age old questions which mankind harbours.
If it's more comfortable to argue from a position of creationism, where everything fits into a rigid narrative; it demands that science prove
it wrong, but it does not care for proving scientific theories wrong because religion is based on faith and not fact. If that's what you want to beleive, fine. But just don't go talking out of school by using provocative or ignorant terms for subjects you have little idea on.