"Coulter does not say, nor does she insinuate, that Darwin is the root cause of historical atrocities. She does point out how those who commit those atrocities are Darwinist. Stalin was a Darwinist. Hitler, who believed in a master race, was...what?"
Then you say:
You attempted to use Hitler to discredit Darwin. That was why I used Christianity to show what a stupid argument you were making. The parallel is precise. OK?
Do you notice how you claim my arguments are stupid? The back side of that statement is that you believe you're intelligent. Yet, while you berate me, you make some ridiculously invalid arguments. If I use Hitler, you can use Christianity? What type of a mind comes up with an excuse like that?
Yours is a case of imprecise precision; Darwinists are known for that. You would profit by reading the last two chapters in Godless, the ones that detail the frauds of the Darwin/Godless religion.
quod erat demonstrandum
You brought up Hitler, and specifically tried to argue that Darwin was wrong because that Darwinist Hitler was bad. This is exactly the same argument as saying that Christianity is wrong because that self-professed Christian Hitler was bad. You have argued a fallacy of irrelevance. I have pointed it out to you in every post that I have made to you. Your answer is to pretend you don't get it.
OK, so you don't get it. Now THAT's a convincing demonstration!