So... If a fossil skeleton is missing, say, a toe, you're going to claim that it doesn't mean "anything", that nothing at all can be learned from any of the rest of it? That any information learned from the rest of it is only "dreamed"?
That sort of rationalization for refusing to look at the available evidence just boggles my mind.
By your own criteria, though, it's just "dreaming" to believe in the Bible unless every timber of the Ark is recovered, every one of Adam's bones is found, all the nails used to fasten Christ to the cross are located (along with the cross itself), etc.
Are you sure you really want to go down that road? Or are you maintaining a double standard for the required level of evidence for things you want to believe versus the things you don't?
Interesting how many discoveries have been made and yet these supposed intellectuals, hold fast to the very thing that removes their credibility.
Your point might be a bit more convincing if you could present something resembling an actual argument and supporting examples. For starters, what in the heck are you referring to here?