Creationists: How do you test for "truth"?

[ImmortalFlame]

You are obviously not paying attention to the posts. Take a look back at the original post in which we find the argument, which reads:

If my magic talisman keeps the flu at bay, I won't have the flu.
I don't have the flu.
So my magic talisman keeps the flu at bay.

Obviously, this is a logical fallacy -- of the type that is commonly banded about here.

The question is now whether the claim "My magic talisman keeps the flu at bay" could be falsified. The answer is, of course, yes. If the speaker of the argument got influenza, then his claim that the magic talisman keeps the flu at bay is falsified.

You said you could falsify the effectiveness of a magical talisman, not a specific claim related to the magic talisman.

You fail. Try again.

BUT

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that you're right.

No need to pretend. I am right.

Let's pretend that his argument was different.

It was different.

Let's pretend that the argument was that the magic talisman usually keeps the flu at bay (but not always).

That wasn't the claim. I asked how you can falsify the effectiveness of a magical talisman, and you provided one circumstance in which the talisman didn't work. That's not a falsification of its effectiveness.

How exactly would such an example tend to show that science was good, reliable, or anything else?

Strawman fallacy. I never said it would. You said you can falsify the effectiveness of magic. You have yet to do so. This tangent says nothing about the reliability of science, just the un-falsifiable nature of magic.