Just noticed one that Behe uses in his book. Maybe seen it here, but it's hard to judge because the creationist actually has to have a defined position in order to use this one.
Make arguments against creationism (or ID, in Behe's case). The response you get is not a defense of ID or creationism, but "Well, that still doesn't prove why evolution is true." It may not, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument is still a problem for ID.