@T_aquaticus, I'm guessing it has been a very very long time since you were a theist.
It doesn't have to be this complicated:
1) If God has arranged from the moment of creation for a Dinosaur killing rock to hit Earth, and if He did so by using only natural laws, obviously it is not "Miraculous Per Se", right? While my parents were quick to say what a miracle I was when born, the fact God had "intended" my Birth is not usually sufficient to officially pronounce my birth a miracle.
2) If God has arranged a rain storm, using the natural processes of the water cycle, is it miraculous? Sometimes Christians associate the provident arrival of rain to be miraculous. But in the context of our discussion here, this is really not what we are talking about..
3) As for your final point (about God intending to heal people or raise them from the Dead) ... healing could be done through the timely invention of antibiotics. Or it could be done by suspension of natural laws, right?
In contrast, Resurrection is usually not something that antibiotics can accomplish, right?
My only complaint about your initial posting on this topic was that you said the Theists you spoke with insisted that miracles had to be something un-noticed.
My point at that time was that this was something they say as an apologia for why we don't see miracles... not as a defining principle of what makes something miraculous.
Now, let's look at your leading sentence in your last post:
[A] "I said that I see no reason why the actions of God would necessarily be unnoticed.
[B.1] If theists are proposing that specific observations are due to the actions of God and
[B.2] are conducive to scientific investigation, then I would like to hear about them."
I agree with your first sentence, section [A], completley. There is no reason to claim that a miraculous action must "necessarily be unnoticed". Being "unnoticed" is not part of the definition of miraculous. I double-confirm that you and I agree on that.
But [B] is a much more complex and mixed bag of ideas: BioLogos supporters could, depending on the actions in question, consent with [B.1] - - that some actions of God are observable, presuming you mean non-lawful actions.... meaning, for example, adding a flagellum to a one-celled creature where it might be argued such a flagellum is beyond the natural constraints of Evolutionary forces (irreducible complexity, etc. etc.).
But I don't believe many BioLogos supporters would agree with [B.2], under any circumstances, if we are talking about the category of God's actions that are miraculous. (Note: After all, what would be the point of studying those actions by God that harness natural processes in a lawful way, right? That's just Science!). We Theists here are fairly unanimous about the idea that a miraculous performance by the Almighty is not something that Science is geared to explain, understand, or even analyze.
Perhaps you could be more precise in the use of the term "Theist". For this entire discussion, you have been lumping all Theists in together, no matter what sub-issue was in play. We're all theists here. And YEC's are all theists too. So obviously - - you are missing differences if you continue to use 'Theist' as your basic premise.
How are we doing so far? Am I tweezing the different strands of hair in a way that you find helpful to your discussion?