Matthew 16:24
I think this thread has finally run its course, but I will try to answer your questions before it is abondoned.
First, on the idea of common descent I think all species share a common ancestor. To take humans specifically, I think you can go back through a series of ever broader common ancestors. Hominids is a term that usually means upright walking apes like humans. (I say usually because the definitions of some of these terms are in flux.) The first conclusive hominid was the genus Austalopithicus, although some suggest an older creature, Sahelanthropus. When you see a linup of skulls of the various human ancestors right on up through "cave men" you will generally be seeing Austalopithicus and / or its decendants. It would be the last common ancestor (LCA) of all the human like apes.
Apes are believed to have evolved from a creature called Proconsul who lived about 20 million years ago. So Proconsul would be the LCA of gorillas, orangutans, chimps, bonobos, humans and gibbons. To go back further, the LCA of the apes and the monkeys would have been an early primate living about the time of the end of the dinosaurs. All placental mammals can be traced back to a creature like Eomaia, believed to be among the first placental mammals. It is even possible to group all of the land vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) into a large group with a LCA of something like Acanthostega, a fish who none the less had developed limbs complete with a humerous, radius and ulna plus fingers and joints similar enough to the way the terrestrial vertebrates are arranged.
I hope that lets you know at least what I think. There is not enough room here to go into detail about the evidence for all that. I can also see how the scattered bits that get presented in a thread such as this can be less than convincing. It is so much easier to slander your opponent and make simplistic, shallow arguments than it is to go into detail, especially when dealing with a subject that your audience may be inclided at first with which to disagree. The common designer line of reasoning is used so much, that I have tried to focus here on genetic aspects that are not expressed. That is, the bits of DNA that do not code for used proteins though we can see how in a different state that would have been useful. That these copying errors are the same between creatures is evidence of common descent, but it is only a small part of the story. The other bit to add is that it is not necessarily creatures that look alike that share similar DNA, as a blow against reusing code from a common designer. The DNA relationships are aligned with the family type relationships among various species.
If you are really interested in this, my best suggestion would be to go and find material from both sides and read it with an open mind. It might even be necessary to go back and read some basic science material to get up to speed on the basics before looking into the details. Go to the bookstore and ask someone there to help you pick out a good book on evolution. Get someone around her to recomend a good book on creationism. There are plenty of websites out there. There is one called
True Origin that deals decently with a wide range of topics from a creationist perspective. It is a response to
Talk Origins , a website full of evolutionary material. One nice thing about Talk Origins is that they link a lot of material to creationist sites which makes it easy to find material from both sides. They even have a number of pages where an evolutionist and a creationists will debate and respond to one another about a topic for several generations with links to everything. Just have an open mind and see which side make the most convincing arguments. For me, I went exclusively with creationist material at first and what I found so disturbed me and angered me with respect to the overtly dishonest tactics they used that it became much easier to look at the evolutionary material with an open mind although I had always considered them a bit nutty. Other creationist sites you might want to consider are Answers in Genesis (AIG) and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). They both have their plusses and minuses, but they are decent for what they try and do. Also notice how the evolutionist pages are not afraid to post links to creationist sites but that you will essentially never see a link to evolutionary material from a creationist site.
As far as the image of God... I believe that is meant to be more in the spiritual sense. We are in the image of God in that we can have abstract thoughts, we know good from evil, and so on. I think it is a bit prideful to anthropomorphize God to look like us. I really dislike the caricature of God as this grey bearded old man. Besides, we look like apes.
I took a brief look at the website you listed and that is the kind of stuff to stay away from. Even if you are looking for pro creationist material, there is much better out there. Just a guy making some laughable and unsubstantiated assertions. One of my favorites is how as he claims that evolution over billions of years is not possible, he is forced to claim extremely rapid evolution of whole new body types after the fall to get carnivores and animals with defensive measures such as poison spines. Sometimes I wonder if these people have really thought what they are saying through. If they have, you have to question their honesty.
I'll leave you with an anecdote. Back when Galileo invented the telescope, one of his first discoveries was the four large moons of Jupiter. He then had conclusive proof of objects orbiting something other than the earth, which was against the gocentrist teachings of the church then. Not only was he labeled a heretic, but many of the church leaders refused to even look through a telescope at the moons for themselves. I am reminded of such people by the deniers of evolution today. It challenges their worldview and as such, they refuse to even take a look at the evidence. Look for yourself, be hoonest with yourself. If you take a good hard look and can be convinced of the facts either way, great. I hope you would see the truth of evolution. But if you remain unconvinced, I would like you to at least be able to make a convincing case of why you are YEC.
)
