Takes a lot of faith to believe that - more than I have, I tell you.
God works in mysterious ways, in this case through natural selection.
This just proves that God has been working at His designs for a really looooong time!..............
But there is no "faith" or "belief" involved with science, certainly not in a religious sense.
Science is simply the result of using certain assumptions (i.e., naturalism, uniformitarianism) and following certain rules (i.e., the scientific method).
And we don't "believe" those results, we simply accept (or don't) that a confirmed observation or theory is the best scientists can produce, for the moment, until somebody comes along with better data and/or ideas.
In this particular example the "better data" shows us complex life on earth 60 million years before previous data suggested.
That's not "belief", it's not "faith", it's just science, at work.
Sola Veritas: "I am saying that so called “scientists” are misinterpreting fossils.
Their dating methods are flawed and based upon weak assumptions....and they delve in circular reasoning.
These new “findings” are not important and don’t prove anything.
They are being used to reinforce already existing false conclusions about origins."
First of all, there's nothing "so called" about these scientists -- you FRiend are the "so called" passing judgment on real science based on your religious faith, while pretending there's something "scientific" in your way of thinking.
There's not, you are a poser.
Second, scientific dating methods, while subject to errors, are fundamentally sound, based on scientific assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism.
Of course you may argue that those assumptions are flawed, but those are the basic scientific assumptions -- they represent the foundation rock upon which all science is built.
In other words, ideas which are not based on those assumptions are simply not, by definition, "science", period.
So, if you argue that science is wrong about such things, then you are arguing in favor of some other branch of learning -- metaphysics perhaps, or a form of theology, but not science.
Third, of course these findings are "not important" to you, because you refuse to accept the basic premises of science, and therefore reject its findings.
But for anybody else, it's most interesting and noteworthy to see evidence of complex life 60 million years older than previously thought.