A human parent gives birth to a five-pound baby. The baby grows into a 260 lbs. football star. You will note that baby eats a considerable quantity of food in the meantime. You will note also that the baby is never more or less a human at one time of its life than another.
That's true. But what's the point? Are you trying to make some kind of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument here? Because you know that doesn't fly.
There are certain qualities or quantities that we get from our parents, and there are certain others that we develop on our own, or get from other influences.
True again, as far as it goes. But we do not simply regurgitate words we hear from others. Otherwise nobody'd ever come up with a new idea. Even if you believe in creationism, you have to admit that people think up things today that were inconceivable 100 years ago. IOW, people regularly create innovative ideas all the time.
In your questions, you deliberately jumble all these things together, and seem to think you are scoring points.
All I said, really, is that something cannot arise from nothing. I never said all the silly things you are talking about. Look up "straw man."
Ah, well if that's all you're saying, then that's different. But you were referring to "greatness" & "perfection", as if you were referring to something more than matter arising out of nothing. Since you had earlier said "And yes, there IS a reason to conclude that the First Cause is a person--because WE are persons. Nothing can give what it does not have."
BTW, matter arising out of nothing is a mind-blower for me. So is matter/energy having always existed, and so is the notion of time itself having a definite beginning. So actually none of the competing Theories of the Universe are all that satisfying. It's this notion that complexity can't grow from lesser complexity I don't buy.
So, are you merely referring to matter arising out of nothingness, or are you also referring to complex entities arising out of simpler ones?