The original:
An arch is a beautiful thing, mechanically strong and efficient, and removing any one part of it causes it to collapse. If I were so inclined I would say it was designed upon seeing one, yet we see such arches created by natural processes. My conclusion is that complexity is often in the eye of the beholder.
HINT: "If I were so inclined I would say it was designed upon seeing one, yet we see such arches created by natural processes."
Running off on a keystone man-made argument is just...well....I'm sure GourmetDan will fill you in on which logical fallacy that is.
All I see is ES committing multiple fallacies in support of evolution again.
In this case, he's using the fallacy of contextomy combined with the fallacy of composition.
At least he's broadened his use of fallacy as argument to include a couple of different ones. That, in itself, is a huge step up the learning curve for him.