I think Karl Popper caused a great misconception.
1. falsifiability is an interesting philosophical argument, but is far away from how science works.
Scientists don't try to falsify their theories, they try to support them with evidence. And we don't accept theories "not falsified yet", we just accept theories "already corroborated by evidence". Do you agree?
2. there are two kinds of evidence; experiments and "observational data".
If all the evidence was experimental, then it would be the same thing (verify/falsify). But evidence is not only an experiment; paleontologists gathered lot of evidence for the existence of dinosaurs but they didn't perform experiments and their hypotesis are not falsifiable (how can you falsify the existence of the T-Rex?).
These misunderstandings come from two elements:
First, philosophers like Popper or Feyerabend insist that "science is only a set of theories waiting to falsified, never really verified, socially influenced and dependent from scientists whims" (partially true, but is an attempt to minimize its value).
Second, that falsifiabilty works well with phyisics (and philosophers tend to identfy science with physics) because all the evidence is experimental and falsifiable at any time; in that case, Popper's theory works well.
Again, sorry if my English is not perfect.
