You must be confused about what I wrote. Why would I explain how absolute truth is not scientific, and then claim something as absolute truth. "Well supported by empirical evidence" is as close to truth as science gets.
I'm getting the idea you're using "verify" in the sense of "prove." To dispense with this idea, I present this article for your perusal (it was the first google result for 'scientific verification').
I'll excerpt some relevant bits for you:
Verification: The use of empirical data, observation, test, or experiment to confirm the truth or rational justification of a hypothesis. Scientific beliefs must be evaluated and supported by empirical data.
One of the most important consequences of this extended and complex debate is the conclusion that theories cannot be "verified", but they can be "confirmed," "warranted," or "falsified."
It is rare for a scientific hypothesis to be amenable to direct and certain confirmation along these lines: given E, H is certainly true. That is, it is rare that there is a finite body of observations that suffice to establish the truth of a given scientific hypothesis. This is so for two reasons: First, because scientific hypotheses normally refer to entities, mechanisms, or processes that are not directly observable; and second, because hypotheses and theories normally make universal claims (laws) that go beyond any finite body of observations. Instead, verification normally takes the form of indirect inductive or hypothetico-deductive support for the hypothesis: given E, H is likely to be true.
Thanks for playing, have a nice day.