Quote:More to the point, did Adam have a belly button?
Should it not sit well with us that Adam and the first trees looked far older than they were?
Quote:Not at all.
Should miracles not sit well with us because they defy science or reason?
Here's my word study for the day: The Greek "dunamis" is sometimes translated "miracle" in the NT and means power, might, and strength and becomes virtus/virtutis in the Vulgate. The Greek "teras", also translated "miracle" (and always joined with semeia, signs), means sign, wonder, marvel, portent in English and becomes prodigium (a form of prodico, to say beforehand) in Latin. The former has more to do with showing God's extrodinary power, while the latter has more to do with indicating that something is going to happen (e.g. the Messiah will come). Primarily, I think you are referring to the former type, which are beyond human power to enact and against the normal operation of things (e.g., dead people stay dead). This would not include, e.g., the skillful surgeon saving your life.
Creation of spacetime itself is a miracle -- an exhibition of God's power that is beyond us -- and even God's putative use of supernovae and black holes and the like to generate and sustain earth is miraculous in the sense that it is a display of raw power far, far, far beyond our capabilities.
But, returning to your question, I don't see the relevance. An old earth view (whether framework or day-age) does not deny any miracles. (Hugh Ross and Meredith Kline both believe firmly in the miracle of creation, the miracle of the virgin birth, the water into wine, etc.) Rather, an old earth view simply argues that God performed his miracle of creation differently than the way the young earth view understands it. There is no denial of miracles or submission of faith to an "enlightenment mindset" here. I'm afraid you'll have to take your pigeonholing elsewhere.
[edited for minor clarification of Latin]
