Thanks Brain! You provide good questions, and yet the issue I asked about is whether the range is thousands or billions. So I'm not focusing on the Sumerians being wrong because even if they're right they're still evidence on the thousands side. The issue is that all humanity had a vast consensus on the thousands side until some cabal members instituted a cleaver takeover with Darwin as frontman until they coopted a scientific establishment on the subject so that censorship could be enforced.

I recognize that a couple Hindu passages can be read as finding ancient dates, but this becomes cherry-picking from what are obviously mathematical conceptual epochs that have no reference to history. So that minority testimony shouldn't affect the overall argument: if the cherry-picking happens to be right that can't be determined by its context but only by other evidence.

So your first link does exactly that, picks a date and then supports it from science. But it rapidly descends into just the kind of rarefied numerology that others do. Real numerology is accurate and supportive, fake is often inaccurate and usually an appeal to authority. In this case your source admits our universe's "total life span is 311.04 trillion human years" (after pulling an epoch of 13 billion out of that as if it's significant because a close match). Immediately after this "hit", the article gives a "miss" by claiming "the perimeter of the (Vedic) universe ... =~ 14 trillion miles" and then bypassing the fact that this is not the universe's estimated perimeter of sextillions to septillions of miles. It deflects by comparing roughly to the light-day, except that would be a radius and not a perimeter (and I'm not checking the original language on that). It says "navagarha" (which can mean "nine planets"), referring in its context to sun, moon, classical five, north, and south, actually refers to the nine planets recognized in a very narrow era (1930-2006) even though now we have 8 planets and several dwarf planets. So the two links contain a few interesting hits but that doesn't tell us how much has been missed. Detailed review would likely show further cherry-picking. But at least I can say, for conspiracy purposes, that the cabal is obviously inspired by Hinduism, as they acknowledge at CERN!

Yes, adaptation of knowledge is good, and that's the spirit of OP. VSL shows that science still hasn't adapted to the contradictions inherent in old-earth theory, and so I am contributing to that dialogue. You dissuade me from an old book series but also refer me to another old book series as your primary argument. My approach, after questioning all the book series in my youth, was to fit knowledge together that I was certain of until I could be confident I had a sufficiently consistent whole. In that whole, VSL (or some other variability) is important because no theory successfully explains all the data; and I find it to be the inference to the best explanation available. I find it established that no consistent proof exists of billions of years past.