No. i mean miracles are described in allmost all religious texts in all cultures and in all times... there are thousands of thousands of miracles. If we just take the flying man, i believe i could find the first 100 examples of "flying men-miracles"! I even know of a religious groups which believe it can train its members to fly.
So we got this huge set of miracle involving flying men. If i pick any of it, and ask you: "Do you think this flying man-miracle occured", you have some default position on that. My default position is no, it most likely did not occur, and i believe we share that.
After this we get to step 2, where we can discuss the evidence in favor of the miracle.. who are the witnesses, how is it described, etc. etc. and based on the additional evidence we can derive some conclusion -- but at first we need to arrive at some default position on miracles before we can combine that with the additional evidence and derive a conclusion. You see what i am getting at?
So its a fairly basic question, and perhaps i should ask it in two parts: Should we per default treat a miracle as very unlikely to have occured? (before additional evidence is introduced, see the discussion of flying-men events) and: should we per default treat a miracle in the bible in an equivalent way (in terms of burden of evidence, etc.) as a miracle described in another religious text, eg. the quaraan?