Comment by throw310822

> It’s more showing you the limits of scientific inquiry into the deep history of Earth.

I think this is it: the point of this argument is to inspire some awe in the listener, making them realise how vast Earth's time is compared to our horizons.

But in practice, the argument is wrong. A dead animal's skin is expected to lasts weeks to months- and yet we have fossilised specimens. A footprint typically lasts hours, and yet we have ones that are hundreds of millions of years old. Even if the expected lifespan of our artifacts is nothing in comparison with these timespans, a small percentage of artifacts will either be preserved or leave recognisable traces- exactly as it happened for soft tissues and footprints. It's extremely naive to think that none of this will leave traces.