Geology: Relative Dating of Rocks

I haven't had time yet to watch every minute of this video, but the point of "Relative Age Dating" is to establish a sequence of events, even if the "precise" radiometric ages for each event are not known or otherwise available.

 Figure 1.

As this rock (above) is not in its original position, the estimate of which lithology is the older host rock vs. the younger intrusion is based upon a general assumption that the rock is from a local Georgia Piedmont quarry.  Also, in this case, the sharp, straight contact is assumed to be that of an intruded pegmatitic dike.

 Figure 2.

In the case of Figure 2, this outcrop is on eastbound Ronald Reagan Parkway, adjacent to the off-ramp to Lawrenceville Hwy. (I.S. Hwy. 29).

 Figure 3.

 Figure 4.

 Figure 5.

This laboratory specimen (above) is probably from Apache Junction, AZ.

 Figure 6.

Actually, Figure 6 is a combo.  The Xenolith is an "Inclusion" and the Fracture is a "Cross-Cutting Relationship".

Figure 7.

The Host Rock of Figure 7 is the Elberton Granite and the dark schistose rock is the older Xenolith.

 Figure 8.

 Figure 9.

Among the other features of Figure 9, the Joints and the Thrust Fault are Cross-Cutting Relationships.

 Figure 10.

 Figure 11.

Laurel Park, Lake Lanier, Hall County, Georgia.

Figure 12.

A small fault (Cross-Cutting Relationship) is present in the Inner Gorge, in the lower part of the photograph.

Figure 13.

In Figure 13, clasts within the boulder represent one "generation" of Inclusions, the boulder itself within the Ash Flow Tuff represents another, while the Pumice Fragments in the Tuff represents still another.

Figure 14.

The Tuff specimen is from the Valles Caldera eruption, near Los Alamos, NM.  The Conglomerate is from the Crater of Diamonds State Park, Murfreesboro, AR.