“You just said it was silly to estimate the age of a population from it’s size and then post a link to a chart that purports to do exactly that? What’s up?”
—No, it is not a chart estimating the time using population size or vice versa. It’s a chart that uses archaeology and historical records to attempt to estimate population size. The people putting the graph together were not assuming that time flowed backwards when the population size dipped for instance.
Unless a population size grows at least somewhat steadily, it’s completely worthless to try to use population size as a way of measuring time.
And while it is true that agricultural societies usually grow, sometimes rapidly, such things aren’t generally seen in non-agricultural societies.
It sure was. It just used different assumptions. The article didn't assume that time flowed backwards either. Did you really think it did?
"Unless a population size grows at least somewhat steadily, it’s completely worthless to try to use population size as a way of measuring time."
Are you saying the article tried to do that? Show me where.
"And while it is true that agricultural societies usually grow, sometimes rapidly, such things aren’t generally seen in non-agricultural societies."
Did the article say that? Where was that said?
Not quite correct.
Simplifying (but not as redicuously as Creationists do) there have been three levels of growth