Most of the palynology work was done by Clifford Burdick, who had very little knowledge of geological techniques. Creationists themselves admit that his results come from contamination of old rocks by recent pollen [Flank 1995; Chadwick 1973; 1981].
Intrusion of pollen in older rocks is very common. Pollen is ubiquitous, and its small size allows it to be carried into even small cracks by water seepage. To verify that pollen is fossil pollen rather than a contamination, one must look at several factors:
What color is the pollen? Pollen darkens as it ages. If it is yellow or clear, it is recent.
Have the rocks been cooked? Vulcanism around the rocks would burn up the pollen.
Are the pollen grains flattened? Fossil pollens would be flattened as they are buried and compressed.
There is no indication that the out-of-place pollen passes any of these tests. In particular, the Hakatai Shales have lava intrusions, so we would expect any fossil pollen in them to have burned up.
Researh keeps us from looking stupid.
I know, I know. Your scientist smart - my scientist stupid. No surprise there. You believe whichever scientists you want and so will I.
Actually, I corresponded w/ Mr. Chadwick on this issue a coupld of years ago and he confirmed that you must *assume* the history of a rock in order to 'interpret' the pollen correctly.
Not knowing the history and guessing makes 'pollen dating' as irrelevant as any other dating method.
That's what the 'scientists' won't tell you.