That is true enough, considering I am a credentialed, practicing scientist, while my knowledge of Hinduism comes only from the books I've read about it. But tell us - what exactly do you think was wrong (specifically) with the argument? I mean, surely you can do better than hand-waving, right?
Oh, and by the way, what did you say your degree was in again?
"A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies.
The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move."
No evolution over time and no great age needed. So firstly you are wrong about the Hindu creation story. Secondly as a supposed scientst, you should know that your creation story is based on faith whereas evolution is based on the scientific method. It is in no way derived from Hinduism or any other religion. The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahma's creation.