That's not what I am saying. I am saying that traces of human civilisation will last. I've never been under the impression that buildings will survive much as they are today.
You thought the Chernobyl sarcophagus would be intact in 50 million years. You've never made it
clear to me
what you think you mean by "traces of human civilizations". I'm thinking maybe a trace element enrichment in some rocks; are you thinking an entire concrete sarcophagus or a stump of the pyramids will be around in 50 million years? Our definitions of "trace" may be very different.
Woah, hold your rockets there, Captain Eager. Where did I ever say that the sarcophagus would last 50 million years
intact? Once again, you show that you are perfectly happy to assume what I am saying instead of reading what I actually say. Congratulations, you've successfully killed the strawman.
There are plenty of environments that could protect it. We've seen these sort of environments protect human remains. My point was that the same luck that protected dinosaur eggshells for millions of years could also protect traces of our civilisation.
Human remains and metals don't react to the same environment in the same way.
Well, the whole oxydization process would seem to me to require oxygen. Peat bogs have been shown to preserve corpses excellently. Of course, it's another matter regarding how long the bog lasts.
Wrong. You're off by orders-of-magnitude.
Yeah, Id guess that a small, extremely fragile eggshell that has had nothing done at all to protect it is much LESS likely to survive.
Why would Voth necessarily build skyscrapers? You don't need a skyscraper to launch rockets into orbit.
But we've seen that a civilization that has advanced to the level where it can build rockets has also developed to the point where it can build sky scrapers.
Of course I'm making assumptions. Are assumptions bad? No, as long as they're clearly laid out. So, I apologize for not clearly stating that I
assume an intelligent, tool-using civilization would have
culture.
I know, I was being a bit overly picky about that, wasn't I? Just playing devil's advocate.
Yes, I am. If I weren't, I wouldn't do you the courtesy of responding. Are you making yourself clear? I'm very intelligent. If you're not making yourself clear, the failure of communication is on you, not me.
Well, the only reason I ask is that you seem to be responding to points that I haven't been making.
Arm-waving. Nothing to see here but pointless arm-waving.
Would you care to explain WHY? Because I tend to think that evidence that a bone made a recovery that could only happen with help from advanced technology is evidence that the individual was treated with advanced technology. Do you think differently?
That many? I'm impressed! But you shouldn't brag - it's not polite.
Because you've been nothing but polite, have you?
What evidence would you like? I'm not interested in digging through the relevant scientific research literature to post research articles that would be above your head anyway, particularly since I doubt you'd read them. Even if you would read them and understand them, it's far more work than I have time to do. You've not made clear to me what you would consider "evidence" anyway, and I did implicitly ask earlier in the thread. Let me know what you think would constitute evidence and I'll maybe see what I can do. No promises.
What would I count as evidence?
Imagine that alien scientists came to Earth in 50 million years. What could they find they would give them cause to think, "About 50 million years ago, there was a technologically advanced civilization that spread across most of this planet." What would give them cause to think that? That is what I would consider evidence.
Secondly, that you do not read what I say, because i never once claimed that buildings will survive intact. My claim has always been that some trace of modern civilisation will survive. You are the one that leaped to the conclusion that I meant a rusty car being dug up in 60 million years or something.
Don't accuse me of not reading. If I didn't read your posts, I'd not bother responding to them. If you're not making yourself clear to me, then perhaps you need to communicate better. Your "Chernobyl sarcophagus" question, and subsequent incredulity that it would not be intact in the far future, made it seem to
me that you thought it would last 50 million years. It won't.
If you somehow concluded that I meant buildings would survive intact when I never said anything of the sort, then you obviously can't comprehend things very well. Don't blame me for implying when it is you making inferences.
Besides, you've posted earlier
If you'd read the meaning of my post, you will discover that I meant that it is almost impossible that there will come a day when human bones are the only evidence left of human civilisation. We have created structures designed to last for a very long time. The pyramids, the Great Wall of China. they may not survive in a form we can recognise, but an investigation will reveal non-natural origins. Other examples could include the vast road networks across many countires, or the foundations built to support the many absolutely huge buildings that we have constructed. Also dams. Even if they are reduced to apparent rocks, an investigation will show that they are very unusual rocks.
The fact is that any space faring culture will leave behind evidence of that culture in some form.
Have we really designed anything to last a "really long time"? What structures would those be? And what is a "really long time" to you?
See those parts I highlighted?
How you can read that and then conclude that I meant that buildings will remain intact over millions of years is absolutely beyind me. So, I conclude that you read what you THINK I am writing and reply to what you THINK I said.
The pyramids, the Great Wall, dams, building foundations, none will survive intact or even recognizable over millions and millions of years. How could they? What would make them special enough to last? The pyramids and the Great Wall are just rocks, and if whole mountains can erode over millions of years, what's going to leave those intact?
Your argument that "They're just rocks and they'll erode" would be a lot more convincing if we didn't have any rocks older than 50 million years. And don't tell me that those are igneous rocks. We have plenty of sedimentary rocks that are older than 50 million years too. After all, we only ever find fossils in sedimentary rocks.
And what would be a recognizable trace of them? How would someone tell a rock from the eroded pyramids from a rock that was never part of the pyramids? Why should building foundations be preserved when even things underground are subject to geological processes that will destroy them?
You seem to be going from the assumption that ALL things underground are subject to things that will destroy them. This is not true. Traces that are left of the pyramids could be the large flat areas of rock that they are built on showing signs of having a large, square-based object on top of them, that, when viewed in relation to the path of the nearby river (yes, rivers leave traces, it's how we get dinosaur footprints, so don't tell me it doesn't happen), match up to the position of the stars in Orion's belt in relation to the Milky Way. And don't start on how the stars will be in different positions in 50 million years. Any alien scientists who come along in 50 million years will certainly be able to piece together what position the stars were in.
Ponder those questions, and consider what assumptions you're making.
And you do the same.
