Why was there a decline in the number of reported miracles in the first century?

In a related question , it is stated that the practice of apostolic gifts declined during the lifetimes of the apostles. For example, Norman Geisler in his book *Signs & Wonders* writes (p. 137): > ...the same apostle who could heal everyone on a whole island (Acts > 28:9) could no longer heal his coworkers in the ministry. The apostles > could heal a person born lame (Acts 3), but Paul could not give > Timothy miraculous relief from a simple stomach ailment and had to > recommend that he take medicine for it (1 Timothy 5:23)...the same > apostle who once had the power to raise the dead (Acts 20) now cannot > even raise his needed friend Trophimus from a sick bed (2 Timothy > 4:20) Does this indicate that there was a decline in the number of miracles in the first century? If so, how would continuationists respond to such an observation? Or, is this a case of the absence of evidence not being the same as the evidence of absence?