Evangelicals believe the flood was a miracle. This is from the definition of miracle in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary. Baker's uses the same definition of miracle you do but understands the world-wide flood described in the Bible couldn't have been natural. Baker's not only calls the flood a miracle, it calls it a "major miracle":
Although English speakers regularly use "miracle" to refer to a broad range of wondrous events, the biblical concept is limited to those not explainable solely by natural processes but which require the direct causal agency of a supernatural being, usually God... ... The next major miracle, the flood, thus affirms both God's judgment on extreme wickedness...
I still am, I don't see what can have confused you.
There are two interpretations of what you said in the sequence of messages from your Message 98 to your Message 102. Here's the sequence:
Dr Adequate in Message 98 writes:
If you want to do something even more unarguably miraculous, try making the Mojave bloom except for a perfect circle, ten miles in radius, centered on the Las Vegas Strip.
Faith in Message 101 writes:
That would actually be a lot easier than making it bloom within that circle, since it encompasses the area of most spiritual resistance.
Dr Adequate in Message 102 writes:
That's what I was thinking.
What you're referring to in this part of your Message 102 isn't unambiguous. You could be referring to making it bloom within the circle. Or you could be referring to the belief that making it bloom outside the circle would be easier.
So now it's clear you meant the latter, but not why you think it would be harder to offer a non-prayer explanation for blooming outside the radius rather than inside. Is it because of all the water supply infrastructure around Las Vegas?
Okay, a perfect circle. How does that explain why turning the Mojave green outside the circle is harder to provide a natural explanation for? Or isn't that part important? Anyway, if you're confusing me then you're probably confusing Faith, too.