As Snail loves to misrepresent, as I've demonstrated before, let's have a quick butchers at the bit he wants us to shoot to in his link:

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).

Note "not necessarily." Know what that means? That they might be, but might not be. But they might be. Note the bit about falsifiability. It does not say that good science is always falsifiable. It qualifies the claim by referring merely to cheating and witness, both excluded from any definition I've ever heard of good science (though not of religion - strange how crypto-religiosity insists on creeping into Snail's thinking...) I like the link, actually. But Snail seeks, it seems, to misuse the information therein. Don't let that muddy field bite, Snail.