The problem is Goku, evidence of life is evidence of life. Not evidence of the creation of life from non-life.
I don't think I said otherwise; the link between abiogenesis and the candidates for the oldest signs of life is that it puts a lower bound on when abiogenesis happened.
Of course if they date all of those shall we say "under-rocks" to be incredibly ancient knowing they find hardly anything in them except micro-things, then obviously it all seems rather circular, especially if that is nothing more than pre-flood sediment.
The inescapable fact is that the Roraima case of the pollen really is a case of pollen existing "then".
Why do I mention this? Well if the shoe were on the other foot and creation was the accepted theory, I can well imagine them touting the pre-Cambrian pollen as something significant, proof for example of angiosperms in the garden. It of course would make no sense at all if pre-Cambrian angiosperms had already evolved.
In a similar case I have known some evolutionists to argue that there exists, (amusingly), convergent angiosperms;
Not only does the old date make us stand up and take notice, but an analysis of the chemistry of the amber is even more surprising. The chemistry turned out to be that observed only from flowering plants (angiosperms) that supposedly had not yet evolved:“However, the most remarkable aspect of the newly discovered Carboniferous amber is that it has a molecular composition that has been seen only from angiosperms, which appeared much later in the Early Cretaceous.”4
So, do the researchers suggest that flowering plants evolved earlier? No, they make it clear that they are not suggesting this.5 Rather they reject the idea that the amber is from flowering plants because of evolution:“In any case, this 320-million-year-old amber is certainly not from angiosperms, which arose almost 200 million years later.”4
Goku, surely you can see how circular this argument it? It's like saying this; "we didn't bother dating a bunch of dinos they say will date as young because after all, these dinosaurs are 75 million years old."
Can you see the circular, begging-the-question, assumptions in this type of reason?
Conclusion; There are plenty of reasons and finds, that suggest to me we also find small things like pollen in, "ancient" rock. There is better direct evidence which clearly thwarts evolutionary belief. It is clear that angiosperms are found in 320 myo amber and pre-cambrian rock, and 300 myo fossilised Wollemi pine trees also, because it isn't a record of evolution.
The Roraima pollen is from a 1966 paper, and is far from an inescapable fact. My information comes from this link: https://sites.google...eology/roraima
I suppose the first thing to mention is that a 2003 paper does date the rock layer in question to 1.8 to 1.9 billion years, which is clearly Precambrian.
While no pictures exist of the pollen, the people who identified the pollen were professional palynologists who do this kind of thing for a living. So it appears that the pollen really was in this Precambrian rock.
The next thing to notice is that these palynologists disagreed on the type of pollen found ranging from various Mesozoic to Cenozoic/Tertiary/Pliocene pollen with one of the few constants being that it wasn't modern pollen.
One idea proposed, which I think is the most likely explanation, is that
evolution is a fraud the pollen grains from various time periods were carried away by water and were lodged in the rock's cleavage planes. The 1966 paper had this little gem (according to my link above):
"T. van der Hammen (Leiden) recognizes a mixture of Mesozoic and Cenozoic elements, but suspects that they represent foreign material concentrated along cleavage planes as, after cleaning fragments ultrasonically, he found the matrix practically barren."
The link goes on to explain that the Precambrian rock in question was uplifted and exposed to ground water starting around 110 million years ago (in the Mesozoic) as determined by a 2014 paper. Another excerpt from the link is as follows, and fyi the "hornfels" are the rocks in question:
"The second explanation argues that the hornfels were too impermeable for pollen and spore contamination.... Proponents of the second hypothesis also argued that if the pollen and spores infiltrated into the subsurface over millions of years, why do the samples not contain mixtures of pollen grains of different ages? However, the rocks probably do contain a mixture of Tertiary and Mesozoic pollen. Considering that the different experts interviewed by Stainforth (1966) dated the pollen and spores anywhere from Mesozoic to Pliocene and that the Roraima Supergroup was only uplifted and exposed to near-surface groundwater in the last 110 million years (late Early Cretaceous) or so (Mecchia et al. 2014, p. 118), a mixture of pollen and spore contaminants of different Mesozoic to Tertiary ages would be expected."
Conclusion: the Precambrian pollen is contamination due to the uplifting of the rock during the Mesozoic in which pollen from the Mesozoic and Cenozoic was carried by water into the cleavage planes of said rock. An interesting argument I will admit, but alas I don't see it ultimately supporting YEC or destroying the main-stream paradigm.