And that's why that 0.5% is meaningless, made up number.
You can start at anytime, with any number of people (well at least 2) and draw a straight line to today and claim that's the average growth rate. That's not science, that starting with an answer you want and making the data fit.
Global warming Proponents do the same exact thing when they pick a cold year(s) as the start of their data.
Isn't the 0.5% number just the answer to this question: What average growth rate would be needed to have a population grow from 8 (4 males and 4 females) individuals to the present world population in 4500 years?
Isn't this calculation just a response to critics who suggested that the world population could not increase by 6.5 billion people in 4500 years? Rather than a scientific fact, the growth rate seems to be offered more as a plausibility statement to suggest the author's hypothesis was at least reasonable. Accepting that the exponential growth argument is plausible doesn't mean that someone has to accept the rest of the creationist argument.
I sense that you are inferring a lot more about this calculation than was meant.
You misunderstand the point of the number. It's an argument against those who say it is impossible for 8 people after the flood to reach current population levels today. If the growth rate needed to get from 8 post-flood people to the current population level was higher than is plausible you would be calling the number 'proof' that it couldn't happen. But because it is absolutely plausible, suddenly it becomes 'meaningless'.
"You can start at anytime, with any number of people (well at least 2) and draw a straight line to today and claim that's the average growth rate. That's not science, that starting with an answer you want and making the data fit."
Yeah, you could do that and if the average growth rate required was too high you would be claiming that it was 'proof' that it couldn't happen. What's not science is saying that it is impossible for 8 people to reach current population levels since the Flood. It's clearly quite plausible.
"Global warming Proponents do the same exact thing when they pick a cold year(s) as the start of their data."
No they don't do 'the same exact thing'. No one is arguing that it is impossible to reach the current temperature from a previous temperature in a certain number of years. You make a faulty argument by equating two unrelated claims.