Hawkins writes:
So what example do you want me to use to illustrate what science is, as for every example I use you seem to have query that what if that example can be falsified and is not thus not scientific.
See, you have it all wrong. Being able to be falsified is a crucial element in an example being subject to scientific testing! For example:
Water decomposing into hydrogen and oxygen could, in theory, be falsified by it decomposing into something else. The fact that it is never falsified lends credence to the prediction.
The presence of an undetectable pink unicorn cannot be falsified. The fact that it is never falsified lends absolutely no credence to any predictions made.
The first example is part of science, the second isn't.
Hawkins writes:
You don't need this explanation becaue religion simultaneously means something not falsifiable by scientific mean.
No, that is a dodge used by theists. For instance in the Bible the apostle Thomas wouldn't accept that Jesus was resurrected without being able to observe him and verify that he was wounded. A number of things could falsify the religious claims at that point; Jesus's wounds being fake for instance, or the person claiming to be Jesus reborn not being Jesus. Jesus not being wounded at all would suggest some sort of double was executed, and the body conveniently removed to hide the deception.
There are plenty of religious beliefs that can be falsified by science. It is just generally the case that once such beliefs are falsified by science, the believers either abandon their god or push it back into gaps in our knowledge where science has not yet advanced. Many theists are engaged in constant backpedaling; creationists would be a prime example.
Hawkins writes:
Yet scientific rules are considered as "falsifyable" which means "if the so-called science rule is not scientific at all, you can establish an experienment to falsify it".
You are misunderstanding what "scientific" means. Science is a method of determining truth and reality, not a shorthand for describing something as real and true. Someone could make completely incorrect predictions based on a flawed theory, do experiments, and be proven all wrong while also being completely scientific.
Hawkins writes:
Falsifyability of science says that, if a rule is suspect of false, it can then be falsified by the correct establishment of experiment using critical data. Such an approach is not applicable to religious stuff, thus religious stuff are said to possess no falsifyability.
Correction: It doesn't apply to most religious stuff that hasn't been abandoned in the face of scientific evidence. The advancement in our knowledge for the most part crushed those superstitions that lay in its path, so religious ideas today tend to cling to areas that are untestable by definition. This isn't an inherent quality of religion, it is an inherent quality of *what is left*.