So what's the big fossil?

Introducing Ida, a.k.a. Darwinius, the newest fossil discovery that Darwinists claim is a missing link between monkeys and lemurs. It's a beautiful fossil, so well-preserved that some may categorize it as miraculous. But is it what Darwinists are claiming it is, a missing link?

There are a few reasons for why I say it isn't. First, there's the whole ambiguously vague timeline that comes up once again. As I observe the famous drawing that shows all our supposed ancestors following a homo sapien, I wonder why homo sapiens weeded out neanderthals but let apes survive. And I wonder why monkeys weeded out Ida's species but let lemurs share the trees with them.

Second, apparently Ida doesn't fit into the right time slot. According to the press release (http://www.revealingthelink.com/more-about-ida/resources/press_release.pdf), 47 million year-old Ida is "twenty times older than most fossils that explain human evolution". So Darwinists still have to explain 45 million years of primate evolution. I've always wondered why the gaps of the evolution timeline are in the middle. You'd think the timeline would be most vague in the beginning, having gaps prevail where the vast eclipse of time has shrouded the proof evolutionists are looking for. But apparently, the gaps are most prevalent where Darwinists need the most proof, namely at the spots that would link humans to another family of animals. It's clear that they don't have their timeline straightened out. All of the species on the timeline could have just as easily lived at the same time. But they insist that Ida is a missing link, an ancestor from whom future species of primates emerged.

Next, Darwinists are fascinated by how well-preserved Ida is, because fossils from the Eocene Era, the era they say she's from, are never so identifiable. (Explore a prehistoric time line.) Well, perhaps the Eocene Era wasn't as long ago as Darwinists assume. Or perhaps Ida is more preserved than most fossils from the Eocene Era simply because she is not from the Eocene Era, but from a much more recent era. But that presumption can't be true because it's not compatible with their overall theory. In order for Ida to be what Darwinists say she is, she had to have lived long before her monkey descendants. But the degree of her preservation suggests she's from a much later time.

Why am I so heated about this issue? Because areas that ought to be left to faith are being intruded upon by science. I don't understand why those who believe in physical healing through saints and shrines all around the world get labelled religious fanatics, while belief in an unidentifiable fossil makes one a reasonable modern citizen who is convinced by nothing but empirical evidence.