[freeper4u]

"That's like saying that when Milton Friedman gets an article published in the People's Daily he will be a legitimate economist. Nature is a biased evolutionist magazine."

Why do you say Nature is biased? Do a search of the literature. You'll find thousands of references to evolution and very few to creationism and similar terms. Those that do exist use the terms as a reference, not as the subject of any scientific research. So I don't think Nature magazine is out of step with the scientific community. Still, I'd accept Scientific American, unless that journal is biased too.

"As to the genesis of life on earth, the materialist/atheists have absolutely not a clue about how it could be possible while fullfilling the known scientific requirements for life on earth. "

Anything in particular? Or are you just making an unsubstantiated generalization here?

[gore3000]

Still, I'd accept Scientific American, unless that journal is biased too.

That one is even more biased. The editor is the author of a totally moronic screed against the opponents of evolution. It was quickly refuted in 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American's Nonsense . Like all evolutionists, they did not try to refute the response to their moronic rants against opponents, instead they tried to have it suppressed. So much for evolution being science.