I'd like to see how you got that from the Vedas since I don't even think that mentions the age of the earth.
10 Great Cycles have already passed since the creation, each Great Cycle amounting to about 432 million years. We're in the eleventh, and quite a way through it.
Anyone to believe the Vedas over the Bible has lost all credibility to criticize the Bible.
No, anyone to believe the Bible over the Vedas without understanding its historical context - like the fact that it was rewritten following the Roman conquest of Judea - has lost all credibility period.
Hinduism is extreme mysticism and completely unrealistic.
Hinduism and Vedism are two different things, the former arising out of the latter. The Vedas present a very different theological, cosmological, practical/ritual and philosophical outlook than Hinduism.
The Biblical faith led to modern science.
No, Paganism led to modern science. Pagan authors of the Classical era were reintroduced to the West through the Arab world (the Arabs had recovered and translated all of the Greek and Roman texts they could find). All of modern science, including mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, mechanics, and everything that derives therefrom, can be traced back to the Renaissance period - so called "rebirth", because of the rediscovery of the ancient Pagan knowledge.
A testimony to all of this is that much of this mathematical, mechanical, physical and astronomic knowledge is encoded in the Vedas. Pagans have had it up on Abrahamists for thousands of years. But then, you seem not to believe that the earth existed at the time at which the Vedas were composed.
You can read the chronologies of Sumer and get ridiculous ages in there which are not credible. There is no way in hell mankind can exist that long on earth and not invent the first airplane by 50,000 B.C.
Sure there is. It's called "not needing to". An airplane is a product of civilisation; civilisation is the desire of the few to control the many. I suppose you take your understanding of the development of agricultural and hierarchically structured society from the Bible, which rather omits most of the archaeological and sociological evidence we have - contrary to your rather bizarre opinion, society is a bad thing, based on the exploitation of some by others, without any essential movement towards positive moral/spiritual growth. However, there is a strong move towards material/economic growth, and that's the growth which has been elapsing for some 12,000 year now - leading to planes as soon as people could get it together enough to stop killing each other for more land to despoil in the name of agriculture.
Judging by Sumer and Egyptian chronologies, we should have been to the moon by 20,000 B.C.
Well, for one, the Vedas maintain that people have already been to the Moon. Lots of odd things in the Vedas, suggesting previous civilisational epochs far back in the past.
Humans are not stupid, contrary to what evolutionists teach about humanity. Humans constantly make strives forward as history demonstrates.
History actually demonstrates that humans are, by and large, stupid, and that it is individuals that can be incredibly intelligent. Individuals in the right positions make the right moves, and usher in grand changes to the overarching scheme of things when working in concert (knowingly or not). Humans in general piss about and kick dirt at one another. If you look at history with a realistic view, we go through cycles of development and destruction, like any organism would. Civilisations rise and fall, advancements are made and then forgotten. I can definitely see it taking the full span of time since the end of the last ice age to get back to a situation we might have been in before.
The earth and humans have not been around no where near as long as evolutionists claim they have been.
The earth I don't know about; humans are actually much older than most scientists are claiming. We have lots of fossils - many of them from times when e.g. half the world wasn't covered in ice. You do realise what a mile high sheet of glacial ice will do to the land beneath, and any fossils contained therein? Everything gets crushed. The northern hemisphere spends most of its time under the ice - we have gaps in the fossil record precisely because things get erased periodically by natural forces. In fact, the gaps work rather well with what the geologists say about the history of earth's development.
Don't get me wrong, unlike you, I don't believe in modern science - because I understand that its philosophical underpinning is utterly absurd and intellectually bankrupt - I'm simply filling you in on information you might not know about, since you seem to think that modern science is in itself a good thing, despite the degree to which it diverges from your belief system.
We don't even have enough fossils to account or millions of years of dead people.
Really?
Really? You realise that fossilisation is a relatively rare process? Most of the dead people are decomposed - they have left no remains. Bones rot, especially when left exposed to the elements (which was the funerary practice throughout much of the world until more recently - excarnation). Fossilisation requires quite specific circumstances to arise before it can occur - humans and human-like things might well avoid those circumstances when it comes to the deposition of their dead.
Seriously, for someone who claims a lot about liking science, you're not very intelligent.
I know all about evolution theory. Its a total lie. Its a good theory if you want to put down other people and dehumanize them. But as a science its complete fantasy. But people will believe this nonsense out of their anger against God. Politics has a way of turning fiction into fact. That is part of the science of tyranny which evolution theory has fed from the beginning.
Personally, I'm on the fence about evolution. We have no direct evidence for it - until we do, it remains "a theory", as nebulous as that sounds. But I'm also wary of jumping the gun and adopting creationism of any kind as a model, because it has as many flaws, if not more, than evolutionary theory. Principally being that, theologically speaking, it is very difficult to get God to act in this world in the manner described in e.g. Genesis unless we understand Genesis in the vein of metaphor - like all scriptures ought to be read.
If you read Genesis aright, evolutionary theory doesn't contradict it in the slightest. For example, the Hebrew word for "days" (as in the "seven days") can apparently be read to mean "epoch", which would mean that seven "epochs" passed in the creation of all things, Mankind arising in the sixth "epoch", which is actually later than suggested by the Vedas if I remember rightly (I think Man is a principle part of creation in the Vedas, having devolved, rather than evolved, into manifestation from the forms/archetypes [the "plans" in the mind of God-the-Absolute, called
Brahman {"that which expands as the Universe"}]). If we take each day as an extended period of time, then the Genesis account matches rather well with what geologists and evolutionists say about the development of life on earth - first rocks, then waters, then green things, then fish, birds, beasts, finally Man.
