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?
“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.”
—Here is what the article said:
“Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce today’s population. Where are all the people? if we have been here much longer?”
—Why ask “where are all the people?” unless you’re assuming that a population is usually growing? Why is it even an issue?
“”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?”
—Unless it was assuming that the human population was usually growing during pre-agricultural times, there would, again, be no reason to ask “where are all the people”. And the “where are all the people” is a link to here:
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people
which has a section which asks “What if people had been around for one million years?”. It also argues against the Australian Aborigines as having been around for 60k years (a nonagricultural people) based on the fact that they only numbered about 300k people.