I am not to disagree that much of the science is of course correct in its facts, but personally i see 3 lines here.
1.The spiritual line, where the person follow the spiritual teching and pay less attention to science
2 The scientific people who see science s the only true answer
3. The people who are either following religion but also see science as good, and those who follow science and does not disagree with a religion
4. Those who see what science reveals as complementary to spiritual understanding, and vice versa, that spirituality informs how we understand science. Many Buddhists feel this way, including the Dalai Lama who has stated,
I would be included in option #4.
In my personal view earth and human beings are a lot older than even science yet have discovered,
Older in what sense? I think you do not understand the Theory of Evolution, apparently. What we call "human beings" is what exactly? What science describes is "modern man" as differentiated from early forms of hominids. Homo Sapiens is a specific species, a branch on the evolutionary tree. Are you suggesting that the species Homo Sapiens is older than what science indicates? Science estimates around 300,000 years old, possibly even 500,000 years ago. Are you suggesting older than than, say several billions of years? This would not fit anything that science can confirm, and would violate everything we do know solidly about the natural world.
IT's not going to happen that something so against all established science, like claiming mountains are not made of minerals but really hard cotton candy, for instance, is not ever going to happen. To suddenly say modern man evolved on dry land simultaneously alongside the creatures of the sea during the Cambrian Explosion 541 million years ago, is pure fantasy. It is utterly impossible. It is utterly nonscientific.
and yet they have not found what they see as the missing link between ape and humns, even we are very close both in DNA and other similarities.
That is not true at all. Are you are learning your science from Creationists, who do not understand science? There is a considerable wealth of information available demonstrating transitional forms for all animals, modern man included.
Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia
So yes i do see why science would belive we come from apes in an evolution.
BTW, we didn't "come from apes", we are part of the ape families.
A hominoid, commonly called an
ape, is a member of the superfamily Hominoidea: extant members are the gibbons (lesser
apes, family Hylobatidae) and the hominids. A hominid is a member of the family Hominidae, the great
apes: orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and
humans.
Hominidae - Wikipedia
But honestly i am not an expert on science, because i do follow only buddhism and its teaching, but i do not reject all science have found. if i did that would be stupid
As a Buddhist, you should be interesting in knowing about the natural world. I would advise however not talking to Creationists, as they are science-deniers, and Buddhism should be interested in truth, not protecting personal beliefs from challenge. Denialism is never part of a valid spiritual path. Ever.
It is no problem for me that you believe this, but personally i do not see humans as animals. The reson why i believe we are not animals is the ability of being spiritual or spiritul beings. Animals can not learn the spiritual teachings
Multiple problems here. First, we are anatomically absolutely animals. We're not minerals or vegetables, or inert gasses or some other classification. We are very much part of the animal kingdom.
That humans have spirituality is part of our evolution as a species of animals. While you correctly say that a non-human animal cannot learn spiritual teachings, that means nothing. They can't learn any other human ideas and conceptions of reality either. They are not fitted with language in the way we are, conceptualize reality with the human mind, etc.
However, to say they do not experience what we call the "spiritual", is purely a speculation of the human mind as a matter of hubris, imagining that we are outside of nature somehow, that we are the center of the universe, that animals of the field are just blind machines unaware of their own existence or experience of life. That is false on many levels. Animals show emotions. They experience grief and loss as we do. They become depressed and happy. They experience the same things we do, and in fact what we have at higher more advanced levels of
sophistication, are built upon what emerged earlier in other species that share the same lineage as we do.
You see reasoning in animals. Tool usage. Problem solving. Bonding. Grieving. Socialization, and on and on. We did not abruptly appear completely different or separate from the natural world from which we emerged. What differentiates us is really simply a matter of degrees of complexity and sophistication of these things which existed in nature before us. As far as spirituality goes, I believe animals do experience the spiritual as well, just held in the mind of an animal, in whatever way that is held in their spheres of reality, to whatever degrees they can hold that.