Given the sheer weight of observational evidence from all scientific disciplines, the age of the universe (13.7 billion years) and the age of the earth ( 4.5 billion years), the start of life on earth (3.5 billion years or so ago) and the emergence of the earliest modern ancestors of humanity ( 40,000 years or so) are all pretty uncontroversial and uncontested figures.
To try to deny this wealth of evidence, to reject the science is to embrace delusion. It leaves fundamentalist believers looking silly, trying to reinterpret the genesis myth, inconsistencies and all, as a literal explanation of creation.
If this is why you are claiming that Richard Dawkins speaks "rubbish", then you are simply exhibiting for all the world to see, a blinkered and - I'm sorry to say - a delusional mindset.
Richard Dawkins is not making this stuff up, when he cites these figures - He is just summarising the scientific evidence that is out there.
I know Dawkins is sometimes seen as a polarising figure - some describe him as hectoring, shrill, militant - but on the issue of the science he is just factually correct, based upon the best available evidence to date.
I am trying to think of a suitable analogy to describe this mindset. It is like being a member of the Flat Earth Society, and flatly denying the fact that the Earth is actually a sphere, or maintaining that we live in a geocentric solar system, rather than a heliocentric one.