Rodney Stark's 2 Bogus Claims and Assumptions - Why?

In his book, The Rise of Christianity, Baylor Professor and Sociologist of religion Rodney Stark estimates the growth of Christianity, and theorizes about how it came to have demographic dominance in the Roman Empire. His argument is interesting, but it's tainted from the very start by one bogus assumption he makes at the very beginnign - he estimates the number of Christians to be 1000 in 40 AD.

This directly contradicts the book of Acts, which has thousands converting in the first year of Christianity with Pentecost. It also makes no sense as an estimate of a religious movement, that, whether you think it's true or false, began at either 30 or 33 AD.

If your book is about the rise of Christianity, and your trying to model demographic growth, but you make an assumption directly contrary to the known evidence, then your theory is by it's own self-admission based on fabricated and bogus evidence and data.

We have no need of Christian professors giving us their supposedly erudite opining that contradicts their religion. If their religion is contradicted, they should not profess it - otherwise, why would they have any credibility? And if their religion is true, they should have the balls and the faith to act like it in the real world.

Professor Stark's other bogus claim is that the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12 is not Mary. That's one of those that if you're wrong about, you just need to re-read the Scripture and do some prayer, reflection, and reading from people holier and smarter than you until you come to the correct opinion on.