Geologists explain why Tasmania is different 

Lmao thank you for the time stamp I was pouring coffee when that part played and I missed it. But yes a very good doggosaurus there

Serial killers?

@@asktheetruscans9857 lmao are they curious though?

@@meino6465 Yes. "Gee, I've always wondered what that guy's intestines look like..."

That's t-shirt worthy

@@asktheetruscans9857 I just smashed a box of Corn Flakes with a Fiskars sledge hammer because I wondered what would happen. I guess that makes me a curious person with good tools who's a cereal killer.

Huh gaaaaayyyyyyy

Geologists are rock lickers!

Okay Hank from breaking bad, come out from your real account.

I really love your enthusiasm for life

I think you might be the kid who has written GEOLOGY ROCKS on his backpack🥹

And we just bought 40 acres of land in Arizona that's got about a billion and a half year old outcrops in the desert - and when they started talking about ages in Tasmania I perked up. Damn, we own a piece of what used to be Tasmania. How cool is that?

@@mommachupacabra damn I wish I owned rocks that are billions of years old!

@@mommachupacabra Yes, you "own" the billion year old rocks indeed ;)

@@kayzeaza well to be honest "billions of years" is a really long time, so you'd just need to go to a place with outcrops of rocks that fit that time scale and break a bit off Edit: depending on where you live this might get expensive and/or time consuming

Yeah I have no idea about any type of geology besides Hawaiian volcanism because I’ve only lived in Hawaii

You seriously call it "Tassie"? That's worse than calling San Francisco "Frisco"!

@@oriraykai3610 i think you'll find that lots of people call Tasmania 'Tassie', especially the locals. The same as Australia is 'Aussie'.

That's great but north-west USA isn't anywhere near Arizona. Or Yellowstone. A few years ago I read that a small area of Queensland is related to Canada, I think it was.

@@oriraykai3610 I’m an Australian and call it tassie all the time

@@stephanieyee9784 NO WAY in this whole wide WORLD 💯 percent 👎

Well they weren’t, since the Grand Canyon hadn’t formed yet.

That's because the earth's magnetic poles would have been flipped that long ago. And also it was so long ago that the earth was still flat. It hadn't pulled itself into a sphere yet, science! 😎

The cameraman must have been Australian, they are upside down

😸

@@roncantrell2836 Comedy Einstein

@@jiminitin oh yeah I think I read that in the Bible

And I was in Tassie on the 2nd of April. Quick, chuck your phone's out, lol.

Only replyed because I wanted to be... Continued...

Don't Nothing

Yep 👍

Fascinating

Well, it is a video uploaded by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I would have thought that was a bit obvious.

@@ij7267 It's a grammatical error, an incomplete comparison. I would have thought that was a bit obvious.

The inlaws and outlaws....

You were just chomping at the bit to get that one out into the world, weren’t you @fins59? 😂

Correct

😂😂😂

They actually do. Sometimes they even take into account whether people walk barefoot or with boots. Amateur geologists, mineral and fossil collectors and normal tursits are a huge problem in some areas.

I have crawled all over it ,one lovely place

It's where people from Sydney's western suburbs go to retire

I think that would require more psychological research than ever done before (Coming from a Queenslander...) and the results would be too disturbing to share with viewers under the age of dead.

@@croccles4680 snotty.

That's pretty easy, you just have to look at the history of formation for Queensland to understand why it's people are different than the other eastern states.

Because we have a communist premier

I chuckled at that statement myself.

You do see directional action in the mudrock, but I love where huge chunks of it are sagging under its own weight, slumping at the base under compression. I like seeing the ripples on the surface from gravity pulling the mud down slopes. I love the caves formed where debris has been trapped- through all layers of sediment/ showing it was all wet at the same time, or else the layers preceding in the zillions of years would have filled in those caves, each megasequence layer. I love in each cave you see impressions in the roof and walls, of the debris that was trapped in there- as the mud oozed down the inclines these caves were just mud or sand and minerals, marine creatures smashed up , that trapped any kind of debris. The impressions are like injection molding/ compressed into the debris, so we are left with distinct amazing shapes in every cave. And pebbles and inclusions on the roof, and inner surfaces. It's abundantly clear that this sediment with its foot prints if dinosaurs which were running for their lives- similar to the giant mass dinosaur burials sites in the US, was from the global flood. It was all under water for a year. The ocean floor did most of the work- " the fountains of the deep openned up." Genesis. Take a look at the ring of fire- volcanic action around the plates. Why are their hardly any now still active compared to in the early times? Ring of fire shows massive event tectonic upheaval. Could millions of years explain the number of volcano's back then? There is a reason it was so volcanic- the tectonics rearranged the earth, during the flood. Look at the megasequence layers. Forget your stupid sclience , the dates are fabricated to uphold the lie. Good luck with which way you swing. It matters. Jake

I’m pretty sure she’s implying that there is cross bedding formed by dunes or ripples. I trust an expert more than a random RU-vid comment lol

@@UserRandJ Global flood?? Says who? Outside of Christian apologetic circles, I have yet to see geologist come to a consensus that there was a global flood. In fact, the consensus is that there was NOT a global flood. And then, laughably, they claim the dinosaurs were alive during the time of the Noah Ark flood myth…and where are the human remains in with dinosaur fossils? (This is ignoring the people who baselessly claim there were dinosaurs on the Ark; which, yiu have to prove an Ark to begin with) Then there are the anthropologists, linguistics, biologists, marine biologists, evolutionary biologists, geneticist, climate scientists, and so many other fields of study that say a global flood, that left only 8 people alive according to the mythology, did NOT happen. The fact of the matter is that truly intellectually honest scientist follow scientific evidences and data where it leads regardless of personal beliefs while theologists muddy the waters to make the evidence fit around their beliefs. Cherry picking and ignoring the science to fit a world view. And theologists can’t even agree on the epistemological questions of a divine being!!! Wouldn’t that be the MOST self evident thing that would be backed up by science?!? Stick a Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Jehovah Witness and a Mormon in a room and ask them to agree on God… No. The only thing that says there was a global flood is a series of books written in a Bronze Age by semi literate goat herds living in a time of great ignorance.

@@UserRandJ What a load of utter nonsense 🤦🏾‍♀️

When it hardens and it's chemical composition is set relative to that of the outside world.

It’s practically impossible to accurately date rocks without massive assumptions, especially over any period of time. They can only assume. It’s something often overlooked. It’s true that scientists are expected to know how old things are but they rarely do for long time spans. Dinosaurs with DNA found in them are supposed to be 100+ million years old, yet the half life of DNA is 500 years…

There is a starting point. The solar system in which we reside went through the "Late Heavy Bombardment" about 3.9 billion years ago when Earth's surface became molten (Hadean era), when the Earth cooled enough to solidify s rocks would be a good starting point.

I agree, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else :)

Hobart is the worst part of tassie i'd rather live in shorewell

Probably have the Dutch to thank for that 😂

@DoctorProfessor The Dutch didn't even bother setting foot anywhere on 'Australia', they just sailed by and went 'oh, look'. Same with the Frenchman de Bougainville on his circumnavigation of the globe. It took the British to actually DO something, anything! So no, the Tassies have the British to thank for that... which is why they speak English there! 😂

@@sunnyjim1355 yes, upon further inspection it was the Brits in 1830 that cleared things up, my mistake 😂

And much of it will be below sea level. That is NOT just because of sea levels rising from the melting ice either. The mass of the ice currently on top of Antarctica is pressing it downwards. This land will not spring back (isostatic rebound) until much longer after the ice melts. This is what may have happened in SE US where the Grand Canyon is. The mass of ice pushed the land downwards. The river was already flowing in the direction it currently is. As the ice melted, the land rose and the river cut its channel.

Haaaaaa good one, clever. Thumbs up.

@@rickkwitkoski1976 much like what’s happen with Canada and Europe right now Antarctica will over time move up. Because all that pressure has been released and they can finally unsquish themselves.

Sign me up. Where do I send my check ? $$

PETER you mean People who Experiment and Test Endemic Rocks?

Hahahahahaha

Fittingly, Peter comes from the Greek word for rock

Every girls got one! :-D

ESBK - Every School Boy Knows... how to look for maps for themselves!

@@philiphicks1273 not these days.

You've gotta love those dolomite cliffs at Cape Raoul ! Only a maniac would climb them. But they do. Domite is volcanic lava that's punched up into columns through sediment layers. You know why there are sediment layers across the globe that buried all things? Because Genesis is 100 percent truth. Jake

@@UserRandJ Can’t even get out of the first 2 chapters of Genesis with out a lot of massive contradictions! And yet, some how, you believe that a magical being (that has too many interpretations to count) piled up a bunch of dirt and breathed life into it to create man??? Let’s grow up and not believe in fairy tales. Genesis is NOT 100% truth. It’s a mythogy, nothing more.

@@thelostone6981 You're dreaming.

@@thelostone6981 I can tell you will be fun

There is no way on earth anybody can look at lichen covered outcrops, without knowing anything about sedimentology, petrology and stratigraphy of the area and be able to determine the sedimentation rate. They could be one year, one day or a thousand years. Just trust the geologists that actually work there.

@@GP-qi1ve You're in denial. Just trust the experts. We know that the experts have got us in their hands. Global flood happened J

@@UserRandJ mate, I am the expert, I am a sedimentologist. You are in denial, as well as the guy who wrote this comment and claims to be able to distinguish "annual deposition layers". Why would you consider the moron who wrote that comment an expert and not me? FFS

Lol loony toons reference

People actually lived there until the genocide by european humans happened.

@@meanscene914 In the 2016 Australian census, more than 23,000 Tasmanians identified as Aboriginal, representing 4.6% of the population - higher than the national rate, where 3.3% of Australians identified as Aboriginal. What makes you think they’re not human?

🤣🤣🤣👍👍👍

@@jonathansturm4163 But are those 23,000 descendants of Aboriginal Tasmanians, or descendants of Aboriginal mainland Australians who moved to Tasmania in modern times? I thought the Aboriginal Tasmanians were completely wiped out by Europeans.

Yep! Zircon formed in igneous rocks then weather out with other minerals and rocks to form sedimentary rocks.

@@columnarbasalt4677 In fact, the world's oldest known zircon, and thus rock remnants, is in Western Australia. The oldest still remnant rocks are either in Canada's Northwest Territories or Greenland (they both fall within each other's radio-carbon dating "plus-minus" overlap, so we don't know which is oldest).

@@andyjay729 Radiocarbon dating isn't used on zircons as they contain no carbon and are way, WAY too old.

@@filonin2 I was talking about the oldest still-extant rocks, as opposed to rock remnants.

You are not wrong, except it happened during the global flood.

@@UserRandJ Still waiting for your evidence of a global flood….

@@thelostone6981 Perfect. Only it's the weekend here, so if you are happy I'll catch you Monday. It's awesome stuff, I guarantee it Jake

It’s in the top ten ... sorry ... I just gave a soft spot for Vancouver Island 🇨🇦 .

@Nate Cross I visited Tasmania last year just before lock down. I had been told that it far more resembles New Zealand than Australia with its landscape and greenery. I am from Scotland and it felt very much like home but much warmer.

I mean Australia is moving north 70 mm per year. So, yeah it may or might not. We’ll never live to see it anyways

He's not wrong but we're heading to Indonesia first. So quite literally, you could say that the whole of Australia is heading to Bali.

India and Australia are actually on the exact same continental plate. Where one drifts, the other always follows. If the plate breaks, the current unsubmerged continental crust making up India and Australia might collide one day. In the VERY very distant future. Short of the crust breaking though, it's unlikely they will meet up. Crust can bend and flex, but I don't know of any situations where it bent to the point of erasing the current equivalent of the Indian Ocean (which, interestingly, is continental/felsic rather than oceanic/mafic) and allowing the tips to merge or collide. Though, who knows? Maybe it used to happen all the time, we just don't have the probable evidence that it does happen, yet, cause it has not happened in a few billion years.

@@evilcam what? If you looked at a map you’d see they’re very much not on the same plate. What are you on about?

@@brianisme6498 It's not my claim, it's what geologists are saying/proving. If you don't like it, take it up with them.

Come visit NZ!

Naughty boy.

@@deltadesign5697 I agree go to NZ tassie sucks a$$ I live here, all the mainland liberal Yobbos have come down here trying to make it just like Melbourne, they only care about money, it’s just development after development ruining the state, my entire family 4th generation Tasmanians are looking to immigrate to NZ after Covid.

Ok boomer

@@charliecrome207 I'm 19 XD

Continental crust is more buoyant than oceanic crust so it doesn’t really get subducted. Instead it just gets smushed on the side of a continent.

It doesn't matter how old the uranium is or where exactly it came from - it always decays at the same rate, and zircons don't contain any lead when they form because it doesn't fit properly in the crystalline structure. And by decaying at the same rate I mean any given uranium atom has a tiny but fixed % chance of decaying at any given moment, whether it's 10 billion years old or just formed yesterday.

@@brucetucker4847 So all Uranium is at the same stage of decay at some starting point in the past? Or is all Uranium in the world at the same stage of decay at any point in time and it’s the quantity present that makes a difference? Is it the ration of Uranium to Lead that is measured so absolute quantity doesn’t matter? How does this work?

@@jeffbransky7966 It's the ratio of lead to uranium. How the dating works is this: when zircon crystals form they can contain uranium but they cannot contain lead. But when a uranium atom inside a zircon decays to lead, the lead atom still remains locked inside. Therefore any lead found in zircons must be uranium atoms that underwent radioactive decay at some point since the zircon crystal formed. Uranium-238 has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, meaning that if you have a gram of it today in 4.5 billion years half of it will have decayed to lead. So if you crack open a bunch of zircons and find that the ratio of uranium to lead is 1:1, the zircon must have formed about 4.5 billion years ago. How much of that deposit of uranium had already decayed to lead when the zircon formed doesn't matter, because any lead in the molten rock won't be incorporated into the zircon's crystalline lattice. That's why they're using the microscope to isolate individual zircon crystals from the surrounding rock, because the surrounding rock could contain other lead or uranium that would skew the ratio. (This is a simplified description, for instance, there's more than one naturally occurring isotope of uranium and they have different decay rates, but hopefully it's close enough for you to understand the principle.)

@@brucetucker4847 Thanks. Great explanation.

Superb explanation Bruce. I never got why Zircon was used for the dating - the lattice doesn’t incorporate lead! Brilliant. Many thanks 🙏

Joe Dirt..... bruh.

Yeah. Now we have all this new rocks, crystal and sand. Nobody appreciates the good old day when it was just dirt

Are you serious? Please tell me you don't really believe the world is 4000 years old! 😂😂😂😂😂🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

if earth was 4000 years old, you would instantly melt

@@boofa_1993 Did you miss the "lol?" I specifically stated that this was the stance of "Christian evangelicals." Did you actually read my comment? lol I'm secular, and I believe in science, not magical thinking.

@@ProgressiveVegan Spastic! 🤦‍♂️

@@ProgressiveVegan Obviously your Poe's law indicator was missed. krischin evangelicals and staunch islamic clerics and believers just CAN'T have their so loved "holey buks" be wrong! Even with all the real and actual evidence staring them in the face, their mythology interpreters are "correct" for them. Confirmation Bias at its absolute WORST!

Deposition and volcanoes. Just like the very ancient parts of north America are in the middle of Canada. Also, plates can have both oceanic and continental crust.

@@vedangsinghal4754 I think you can partially tell through extinct volcanoes, but both Tasmania, as well as the mainland also had them millions of years ago. Even it was from somewhere else; I'd say it was probably still part of Australia's mainland, imo. Also given the fact the continental crust is virtually the same throughout most of the country, except for central Australia, which seems more realistic. The geologists in this vid are mainly talking about coastal areas where some rocks look somewhat distinct from other parts of the world which could maybe tell a different story but it's still not evident.

@@darrellm9915 Your opinion is irrelevant as the evidence disagrees. Science.

@not today I would think that they just discussed that in this video. You could watch the video first and then have a better question I assume.

Darrell, the position of Tasmania in relation to Australia would be virtually identical 10,000 years ago. On a plate tectonic time scale, that was yesterday.