And how would any of these possibilities negate the event as being a 'miracle'? Do miracles require the suspension of the laws of physics? If we know HOW it happened does that make it not a miracle anymore? I'm inclined to say no. I don't think it would.
Somebody already posted a link to a Wiki page on miracles. That article identified two meanings for the word, one literal, the other metaphorical. Literally, "A true miracle would, by definition, be a non-natural phenomenon, leading many writers to dismiss them as physically impossible (that is, requiring violation of established laws of physics within their domain of validity) or impossible to confirm by their nature (because all possible physical mechanisms can never be ruled out)."
Metaphorically, "the word
miracle is often used to characterize any beneficial event that is statistically unlikely but not contrary to the
laws of nature, such as surviving a
natural disaster, or simply a "wonderful" occurrence, regardless of likelihood (e.g. "the miracle of childbirth"). Some
coincidences may be seen as miracles."
And as always, two similar but distinctly different definitions lead to equivocation errors and ambiguity as posters slip from one meaning to the other. I answered the OP assuming that he meant the first definition, a violation of the laws of nature. My answer was that one could not tell if this had happened even if it did.
If we know how it happened, the answer involves natural processes, and if one chooses to call it a miracle, he has slipped into definition 2.
Most of these kinds of problems in discussion simply disappear once terms are defined clearly and succinctly, and we are careful not to commit equivocation errors. How often do we see people disagree using terms whose definitions they haven't articulated or can't agree on? Vague and ambiguous language impairs communication. It adds noise (unintended meaning) to the signal (intended meaning).
And it's a favorite technique in apologetics. Take terms like design, God, faith, or miracle, and use the word in two different but distinctly different ways, first to slip the notion in without the supernatural baggage, then suddenly go to the supernatural meaning. The apologist who understands that the skeptic will accept the word according to a naturalistic definition then starts implying the other one.
For example, the apologist calls the laws of nature God. OK, if that's what he means, when he uses the word God, I can't argue that such a thing exists. Then, suddenly, these laws wake up and gain the power of intent. The apologist hopes to sneak his God in through the back door using equivocation.
In this case, it's miracles. By calling naturalistic processes miracles, nobody argues that miracles thusly defined occur. The hope is that this will influence the mind that accepts this idea in the form of the individual now agreeing that miracles occur, and maybe forgetting that he never agreed to supernaturalism, the hope being that the idea will evolve in that direction in the head into which it has been planted.