I have studied evolution. I used to think in the same way you do. I get what you're saying. But after giving the evidence a fair and honest evaluation, I came to the conclusion that human existence could not possibly have started with an explosion. This is a conclusion based upon my evaluation of the data. I can justify my conclusion based on the validity of my assumptions.
You choose to accept the theory that man has not existed consistently in his present state since creation. This is a belief, but it is not hard science.
My belief is different. Both dogmas have equally as much evidence, but in uniquely different forms. Mine is documented human history, and yours is a scientific theory. Your theory is derived from the scientific method, which considers language such as "probably" and "have many similarities" to be concrete evidence of a conclusion that is not necessarily supported by the paleoantropological evidence.
Just because there is fossil evidence of other species who existed prior to humans, and who have some similarities in physical appearance, does not definitively prove that I have a gorilla or a monkey or a fish in my family tree.
My parents had two parents. Their parents had two parents. And so on and so on. At no point will you reach a juncture where a baboon or an amoeba occupies a branch on my family tree.
God created Chihuahuas.
Hmmm. I thought you were born of parents.
It looks like God may have created you in His image by creating the first "amoeba" and letting evolution happen.
Did I tell you that Creation is not contained in the Theory of Evolution?