And remember, the article gives a date range of AD 33 to AD 70. This means that, if the actual date of the church building is closer to AD 70, it would have nothing to do with The Seventy, as their travails would be close to 40 years earlier. Also, a date this late into the First Century would clearly remove it from "oldest church" status. By AD 70, there were hundreds of houses and other buildings that had ongoing use as churches. In that set of circumstances, this church might be the oldest one uncovered to date - and therefore quite important historically - but it is hardly the oldest one in absolute terms.
Finally, it is important to remember that the discoverers haven't disclosed their evidence to back up their claim yet. As an one-time archaeology major myself, I can tell you that 2000 year-old buildings have much to their makeup that is explained only by conjecture. Depending on what they actually found, layout-wise, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate clearly that it was used as a church building. They have a much harder burden of proof demonstrating that the building was specifically used by The Seventy. Don't forget that major archaeological expeditions in the Holy land and environs are very competitive, have major funding sources behind them, and are very "results oriented." The motivation, under these circumstances, to (at least initially) overstate one's case is palpable. Witness the recent fiasco involving the alleged ossuary of "James, the brother of Jesus." Indeed, look at almost anything that Simcha Jacobovici has involved himself in; you'll see the temptation to embellish (at a minimum) the facts is often very strong.
The part of my post 18 involving the comment above should have been directed to Resolute, not BtL. Sorry for the confusion.