1/ Why Genesis zero verse zero?
The reason for Zero verse zero, is to cover the evolution/creation debate in a basic non partisan way. Too often the debate is between a specific religion's understanding of Scripture and somebody's private interpretation of present evolution theory. This would be practical only if; one religion had got it all sorted and it debated with an atheist(s) who equally, had it all sorted, but we live in a world where we all still learn.
Most believers find it difficult or are unable to present a clear reasoning to the atheist, why? Because creation alone is not all there is to belief, for a fair number creation is not even the prime reason. So here are some reasons for belief which often start to cloud the debate, to the irritation of the atheist.
Note, all things have a time and place it is best to keep to the point agreed, these are all worthy topics in themselves, but may dilute or cause confusion if mixed in.
[End of the four points.]
If; the unbeliever thinks God is not,
then fails to avail themselves of the things now or hoped for,
he or she has lost nothing,
since one cannot loose what one has not.
Therefore by simply proving a Creation, will sometimes create motive for such wonderful gain.
Put simply; zero verse zero argues for a creation on the evidence seen so far, whereas, the next section 1v1 to 2v4 is argument for a specific named artisan.
As prepared here the text may be employed by the believer who needs to answer the atheist, on 'his home ground'. In consideration of that need, no Scripture is used as part of the arguments/proofs, some are inserted as interesting asides/comments it is optional if you choose to use these, faith etc. issues are omitted, for the zero v zero section only.
Judging by by how we use the word 'creation' in various fields of human activity, music, literature and artisan works. A creation is anything which could not have existed but for, an action of will by an intelligence. If you agree to the above, 'the creation' might not be restricted to just the results from some interpretation of Scripture, but to any deliberate constructive act(s). For example an intelligence causes the existence of a primeval ball in our space/time and detonates it.
Though believers may dispute among themselves the method by which God [generally creator in this section] did the job of creation, this is much less important than the issues; Were we created? And if so by whom? What duties/relationship should ensue? The first of these three is dealt with in zero v zero.
That there is good reason enough in Nature just as it is, to conclude a considerable intelligent creation as a valid conclusion.
Mainly applied science is used as this is unlikely to be in dispute and examples abound. Many believers will not refer to the creation as an act of manufacture (etymology), aside from that, man has now an extensive technology and has made many things. So applied science should be a viable source of principles &/or parallels to extrapolate. Think; extrapolate from man's works for many of the reasonings here.
1/ The generally accepted evidence is taken 'as is', for now.
2/ What (kind of) evidence or logic seems to support active production by (an) intelligence.
Next: 2/ Self