Here's my $0.02 - and let me start by saying that I don't think zoegirl and I differ on the fundamental meaning of evolution. Evolution in the strictest sense is nothing more than changes in alleles in a population over time - the forces that may cause those alleles to change have been described already. This has been termed micro evolution, and because it us demonstrably verifiable and because it doesn't seem to violate any religious scripture seems to be widely, if not universally accepted by creationists. Now, evolution in the big scheme of things is really a matter of micro evolution (usually coupled with mutations of some sort or another) over long periods of time. If you believe the earth is old, then micro-evolution over deep time can and does lead to large changes - the formation of new species, for example. And the field of phylogenetics and paleontology seeks to explain and describe these large scale changes. Now because this notion does violate certain passages of religious texts read literally, many people do not believe macro-evolution is a logical consequence of lots and lots of micro-evolution. So evolution is a process both at small, measurable levels, and if we are to believe the findings of phylogenetics, paleontology and even genetics, comparative physiology and developmental biology evolution is also a phenomenon that has brought about very large scale changes. You're free to accept it or not - I'm just describing what evolution is and is not.
that's what I asked a few pages ago. If microevolution is agreed on by both sides, then I don't see why you cannot have macroevolution over longer time scales. It is also possible that there was accumulation of genetic material over time. Can the creationists prove that macroevolution didn't happen? Of course they can't. It's the same situation in which atheistic evolutionists can't disprove God. So using the argument "we cannot observe or test macroevolution" is hypocritical because the same question could asked of them ("can you observe and test God") Of course we cannot actually test either in the lab but it is clear that evolution happened simply by looking at the fossil record (unless you believe that God interfered at multiple times in Earth's history and created things), and also by the numerous convergent lines of evidence that ARWallace lists.
This example is but one of many assumed changes to the species. Evolution if you believe in it has at its core a belief that changes take place one after another and over time the species becomes something else. So if you believe in evolution then the cause can come from God or nature. If from God then why would we drift to some other thing since we were created in HIs image, does this imply that only some people will be in God's image, at some point the logic falls apart. And if nature then why give nature the power to change God's image? The bottom line is, did God give the power of creation to nature? If He did not then accepting evolution over His direct hand would go against scripture.
who's to say we will stray from the image of God. Has Homo sapiens really changed that much in appearance since we appeared on Earth? There are many examples of evolutionary stases where species "designs" remain fairly unchanged with only minor modifications. Look at sharks for example. They have been around for hundreds of millions of years and they were recognizable as "sharks" from the beginning. The changes that are ongoing in humans are microevolutionary for the most part. We may be getting a little larger than our ancestors but we retain the same basic form.
Also, saying this assumes you know God's true form. If we evolved to be green with 6 fingers and toes and breathed CO2, we would still be recognizable as a bipedal hominid. If you object to that, then what exactly does God look like? If He is a white man with white features, then is a black man or Asian man "outside of God" since he is not matching God's image? If God is another race, then can we say white man is not made in God's image. That's what I'm trying to say, you cannot make every man on Earth match God's image perfectly. "God's image" is subject to change.
One more thing. If a species of hominid related to man evolved in a few million years (from man), technically they wouldn't be Man anymore. So your problem is solved! Man is defined as we see him today. Anything else would be considered a new species.
Second, I remain somewhat more conservative about our place in nature. We are a frail and not very resilient species compared to many. And if you believe we are the products of evolution, I would remind you that despite our profound impact on the planet, that we've only been here a nanosecond in the history of the Earth. We are not, by this reasoning, the paragon of evolution in action - we are merely a clever and somewhat talented group among all extant taxa that are also products of evolution, at this moment in time. This doesn't mean we aren't unique or special in god's eye, if you have such theistic leanings. Only that I tend to be a bit circumspect in my views of our place in nature. I used to live near Seattle, and every year a handful of hikers would perish on Mt. Ranier. This mountain is visible from Seattle, and these hikers were usually equipped with the best and most expensive equipment and survival gear that REI had to offer. And usually they would only be missing a few days before they were found dead. So if 21st century mountaineers, in the peak of their physical fitness, equipped with the best that technology had to offer could die within clear view of a major American city (with cell phones in hand), I contend that the human species may not be the masters of nature we might think we are.
I mentioned this in my last post. I said if we placed an average American in the jungle with nothing, then he/she would most likely perish. You can say that we are evolving into our artificial environment. I guess shows like "Man vs. Wild" are trying to reverse that. hahaha
but....that's it. 
How could they test something on timescales untestable? They could only test microevolution, which has already been proven. I think science is doing a better job of holding up evolution (and old Earth) than disproving it! Please elaborate...