Why name it Europe?

It is, it was once joined to Madagastar and Austrailia, fossil evidence of dinosaurs is another clue pointing that way.

The presence of certain fauna found only in Africa and India also suggested the two land masses were once joined.

Madagaster IIRC.

I found something interesting about the name "Asia".  To the Greeks of Herodotus's time, it was a "woman's name" of unknown origin, although Herodotus does mention that the Lydians claim the name originated among them.  The curious thing about this claim is that in Linear B tablets found at Mycenaean Pylos in the western Peloponnese there is mention of slave-women of different western Anatolian locales including, among others Aswija.  This name matches a western Anatolian country mentioned in Hittite texts known as Assuwa which is placed by some scholars in the later region of Lydia.  When the Romans acquired the Kingdom of Pergamum which included Lydia, they renamed it the province of "Asiana".  If "Asia" comes from "Assuwa", then the Greek name came from a Luwian name, because "assuwa" in Luwian meant, "horse". 

No, the Philopines is its own seperate plate. Just like Arabia, Indo-Australia etc.

Renember, there are many diffinitions of continents

"Europe", as used by the Greeks is quite old.  We know that Herodotus was using the name in its near-modern sense, by about 430 BC.  In his examination of the world's geography, he described Europe as having an indefinite eastern border and thus was equal in size to Africa (his "Libya") and Asia, combined. (Herodotus, Book 4,45).  His "Asia" bordered Europe at the Black Sea, the Tanais, the Caspian Sea, and the Oxus (Herodotus, Book 4, 37-40).  It is to be noted that even he did not know the origin of the names of the continents, only that they were "women's names". (Herodotus, Book 4,45). 

It was in the Roman period, when the geographies gave a more modern meaning to the idea of Europe.  Sarmatia, known by Ptolemy (c. AD 150) was divided into a "European" and an "Asiatic" section, divided by the Ural Mts. and the Ural River, which is where modern geography places the division. 

 

Continents have never been based soley on Culture.
The Philopines is its own seperate continent too, and there is a little one in Iran somewhere, Caspian plate possibly.

I agree with Cywr. There was never any definite name until later in Human history for any of the continents. Africa wasn't called Africa, it was part of the Caliphate at one part, so it had it's own name then. And it's own name when ruled by the individual tribes. And it's own name for damn near most of it's history. A movie, though I can't be sure how accurate it was, depicted African Slaves on a boat... the name escapes me at this time, but they didn't even have a name for the area in which they lived. They could find it, but they didn't know what to call it.

Much could be said the same to Europeans. Although, I would just assume it was the "Christian Empire" in its simplest forms.

and so the conclusion is?

Is europe a modern name e.g. After the medieval time period?

If i do recall the pre-industrial Europeans hardly referred to themselves as Europeans, rather As "the whole of Christendom" or Chrisitian Brethern.
Before Christ, it was even more fractured, and i don't think the Europeans had any common identitly to share.

Err, Yiannis, so it is or it isn't from Babylonian (or whatever)?