Sorry, your logic again is alluding me.
OK, to go back to the bullet. You presented a hypothetical situation in which God diverted the path the bullet would ordinarily take. And correctly noted that there is no way an investigation could take account of this. Based on the way the bullet lodged in a wall or whatever, an investigator would assume a certain undeflected path from gun to bullet, and so place the gun in the wrong place, because there is no evidence of the deflection.
(Note that if God had decided to use some physical means of deflection, instead of a miracle, this problem would not arise.)
I don't think we have any problem in agreeing that this hypothetical scenario is possible. But we are not assuming in any particular case that it actually happened. So we have to make a distinction between what God can do, may do, and actually does. And, as also suggested, between an action which does leave evidence and one that does not.
Now, let's go to the created order. God created this order including all the properties of matter and all the forces that govern the relationships of particles one to another for a purpose: to make a universe that sustains life, notably human life.
That purpose has never changed. From this we can come to two conclusions.
1. As long as the natural order is sufficient to God's purposes, God is unlikely to work around it. It makes no sense to propose miracles without purpose when a God-given natural order serves the purpose equally well.
2. On those occasions when God does choose to work outside the natural order, it will be for a specific purpose and will also involve some restraint. To preserve the Elijah's life by sending ravens with food, or by prolonging the small store of food of the widow of Zarepheth, is a miracle of clear purpose, and of moderate effect. It does not require tampering with the most fundamental forces of nature in such a way as to render the earth uninhabitable.
Now, finally, let us go to the creation accounts. You speak of miracles in these and in the flood accounts.
But you are treating the accounts as straightforward description of events. That involves using a certain interpretive principle. What is the reason for treating these accounts as objective description? Is objective description a typical mode in which literature is composed? Is it typical of the literature of the time? Or is it likely that the accounts are a different genre of literature?
Before one can discuss claimed miracles in the creation accounts, one must establish that the accounts are intended to be objective reports of the sort one expects in an unbiased news report.
Only then can one go on to other questions raised by the claim that a miracle has occurred.
For example, is it claimed that any of these miracles left evidence which can be investigated?
I That's pretty much all I meant by material determinism.
