Here's his original wording:
"UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature)."
And here's what he says now:
"The point of UD’s contest (“UD Puts up $1,000 Prize“) is to demonstrate in a practical way that design theory does not depend upon a suspension of natural law (i.e., supernatural miracles)."
Notice the change in wording? Do the two paragraphs say the same thing? NO. Do they require the same thing? NO.
arrington is a lying, obfuscating piece of trash that had no intention of ever paying up, no matter what anyone says. His so-called "contest" is a deliberate fraud, just like him.
And in that thread, GailPlatt wonders:
"I’d like to know how a materialist would define “miracle”..."
Well, gail, I would define a "miracle" as you religious IDiots telling the truth, showing some integrity, facing reality, living up to the morals you're always preaching about, and shutting the fuck up about your religious beliefs and dishonest ID agenda.