Can this be multiple fallacies, if so which ones?

Could be a Definist Fallacy, since this use of "creation" is unorthodox and unsupported by the speaker. 

This statement does not define the term "creation". There are many views on the subject of creation (creation ex nihilo, creation ex libris, creation from chaos, transmission from the realm of forms, etc...). As the term creation is undefined, we cannot make a clear judgment as to the validity of this statement.

Whomever said this doesn't quite understand how words work : ) I see some Homunculus Fallacy in this statement. We define a word then the word takes on a meaning. This statement suggests the definition was a result of the word itself, which of course, had to already have meaning for this statement to make any sense.

Is intention a necessary component of creation? Can I create a sculpture (intentionally) and create a mess as a result (unintentionally - as in a byproduct)? Or would that be Equivocation on my part since the two acts are different in that one is intentional? Honestly, I do not know enough about the term, but I wouldn't have a problem with the claim that "creation" implies (or even requires) intention. I guess the only issue I would have is the word "creation" is often used poetically when referring to the beginning of the universe (e.g., I recall Neil DeGrass Tyson using this term - a well-known agnostic).

If humans create, intentionally or otherwise, we start with something and use it to make something else.

Supposing there was nothing before there was everything, some humans insist there had to have been an agency to create everything from nothing.  The meaning of this kind of "creation" differs imo from the everyday meaning and is Equivocation 

It is also Anthropomorphism by which our own experience implies a universal truth.

Reaching, a little, the Anthropomorphism is also a kind of non-sequitur, in that the creation of anything from nothing is outside anyone's experience, so our skills are irrelevant.