Why does science always upstage God?

[Billy Bob]

"Not at the time in question.  This has been pointed out to you multiple times, you dumbass."

It has been brought up many times but NOT once with evidence. Did I mention that when you take your side for a natural creation that you'll need to resort to science fiction? I sure did, and you all are proving me right because you need your science fiction. Imagine that, it happened naturally with the laws not working then which means it was supernatural. We have NO proof the laws were not in effect. You jokes always resort to your science fiction god. So keep on praying to your god for clueless guidance. 

It's basic science fact, not science fiction.  Moreover, you're the one claiming the laws as we know them hold at the time in question.  Science doesn't say that.  That's just something you pulled out of your butt.  Actual science says that what happens then is not currently understood.  So you're claiming that you know something that science doesn't, which makes you the one with the evidence problem.  But whatever.  Ask and you shall receive.

---

---

Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles. It is the foundation of all quantum physics including quantum chemistry, quantum field theory, quantum technology, and quantum information science.

Classical physics, the collection of theories that existed before the advent of quantum mechanics, describes many aspects of nature at an ordinary (macroscopic) scale, but is not sufficient for describing them at small (atomic and subatomic) scales. Most theories in classical physics can be derived from quantum mechanics as an approximation valid at large (macroscopic) scale.

Quantum mechanics differs from classical physics in that energy, momentum, angular momentum, and other quantities of a bound system are restricted to discrete values (quantization), objects have characteristics of both particles and waves (wave–particle duality), and there are limits to how accurately the value of a physical quantity can be predicted prior to its measurement, given a complete set of initial conditions (the uncertainty principle).

Wikipedia || Quantum mechanics

The use of only general relativity to predict what happened in the beginnings of the Universe has been heavily criticized, as quantum mechanics becomes a significant factor in the high-energy environment of the earliest Universe, and general relativity on its own fails to make accurate predictions. In response to the inaccuracy of considering only general relativity, as in the traditional model of the Big Bang, alternative theoretical formulations for the beginning of the Universe have been proposed, including a string theory-based model in which two branes, enormous membranes much larger than the Universe, collided, creating mass and energy.

Wikipedia || Initial singularity

---

General relativity, also known as the general theory of relativity and Einstein's theory of gravity, is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and is the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and refines Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time or four-dimensional spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of second order partial differential equations.

Newton's law of universal gravitation, which describes classical gravity, can be seen as a prediction of general relativity for the almost flat spacetime geometry around stationary mass distributions. Some predictions of general relativity, however, are beyond Newton's law of universal gravitation in classical physics. These predictions concern the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light, and include gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift of light, the Shapiro time delay and singularities/black holes. So far, all tests of general relativity have been shown to be in agreement with the theory. The time dependent solutions of general relativity enable us to talk about the history of the universe and have provided the modern framework for cosmology, thus leading to the discovery of the Big Bang and cosmic microwave background radiation. Despite the introduction of a number of alternative theories, general relativity continues to be the simplest theory consistent with experimental data.

Wikipedia || General relativity

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This irregular behavior, known as the gravitational singularity, indicates that general relativity is not an adequate description of the laws of physics in this regime. Models based on general relativity alone can not extrapolate toward the singularity—before the end of the so-called Planck epoch.

Wikipedia || Big bang

---

---

In other words, we lack accurate laws for describing the universe at the time in question as gravitational effects and quantum mechanical effects need to be taken into account in order to accurately model reality during that phase.  Since general relativity is not adequate and we have no theory of quantum gravity to use as an alternative, the most accurate laws we have fail to accurately model that time period and so what happened then is simply not known.  Calling that supernatural is just a form of equivocation -- using a word in two different senses in the same argument and makes your conclusions invalid

---

---

I've shown you mine, now you show me yours.  What is your evidence that the 1st law of thermodynamics accurately describes reality before the Planck epoch.

So this is considered your evidence to show the laws were not there when we know naturally has ALWAYS had the laws existing. Drum roll for this BIG scientific evidence.....

"It's basic science fact, not science fiction."

Wow, you may have convinced a rock but to any sane person, that was really funny. 

Now, be quiet and the next time provide evidence that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. That's right, you don't have the integrity to care about what science shows, you just like to make up whatever you want. 

"Moreover, you're the one claiming the laws as we know them hold at the time in question."

Well, if you knew how to read and were honest at the same time, I clearly showed creation was done supernaturally. That means the laws were not in place, duh. That means that the laws could not have been in place then. Did it EVER register with you that supernaturally is not natural, it's beyond natural? If so, why are you so 'slow'? And the thing is, I already covered this. But don't feel embarrassed, your fellow atheistic types are as slow as you are. 

"Science doesn't say that.  That's just something you pulled out of your butt."

Actually, you can pull up those laws, all that I gave before, and you'll see they are really laws. You'd see too that I clearly said creation was supernatural. You'd see it YOU that has YOUR head up YOUR butt.

"Actual science says that what happens then is not currently understood."

Well, you even contradicted yourself. Yep, that is how SLOW you are. Just previously you wrote....

"It's basic science fact, not science fiction."

If it were a science fact, you'd have evidence. Now for a BIG laugh, this is your evidence....

"Actual science says that what happens then is not currently understood."

Come on, just look how stoooo-pid you are. Does your left part of your brain know what your right side is thinking? You need to tell both sides that they need to agree before showing you have no idea what you write.

"So you're claiming that you know something that science doesn't, which makes you the one with the evidence problem."

Maybe read this a 1000 times and see if it registers with either side of your brain that also can't agree what you think....

Science is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. YOU believe this all came about naturally. The laws I gave show they can't because naturally the 1st and 2nd laws won't allow it. 

AGAIN...be quiet and the next time provide evidence that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. YOU chose YOUR position so back it up. I backed up my position and look what a pathetic example you are not being able to get around it and actually contradict yourself! It may be best to be quiet rather than show how little you think and how you really don't care about honesty and science.