The question was
"Do you agree that an event having the appearance of being a miracle may later be found to have a natural explanation?"
You are submitting that you do not agree that an event that has the appearance of being a miracle may later be found to have a natural explanation, because there are events in the Bible that cannot be explained by natural causes.
IOW, you're arguing that if any event has the initial appearance of being a miracle (ie happening contrary to known natural laws), then it must be one and there will never be a natural explanation for it, because the Bible describes events that can only be described as miracles.
I believe I am arguing that the definition of a miracle is more exclusive than simply determining if there is a known natural explanation, timing being paramount.
[[IOW, you’re arguing that if any event has the initial appearance of being a miracle (ie happening contrary to known natural laws), then it must be one and there will never be a natural explanation for it,]]
I think a little more precision is needed here- God may very well use natural laws in a supernatural manner- if so, then yes, we can know how He did something by examining the natural aspects, but not understand the actual supernatural event itself. For instance, when the head was restored, scientsits could examine how everythign was reattached, whether htere are any telltale reattachment points, see if any vessels shrunk during hte process, determine iof any biological changes took place, if there was any scarring etc, but still not be able to determine How God superceeded nature by causing hte event to occure.