I like sophisms a lot, but during week-end discussions about insignificant matters. Not when it comes to discuss seriously science.
Look at this one from Behe:
(page 9, §3, of) Cellular machines and machines in our everyday world share a relevant property — their functional complexity, born of a purposeful arrangement of parts — and so inductive conclusions to design can be drawn on the basis of that shared property. To call an induction into doubt one has to show that dissimilarities make a relevant difference to the property one wishes to explain.
Nothing indicates that cellular machines’ functional complexity is born out of a purposeful arrangement of parts! You have to prove that, that there is a shared relevant property between cells and machines, before using it as a shared property to draw any kind of inductive conclusions.