Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.

[Tiberius]

If I were to claim "there is no God" then all someone would have to do to prove me wrong would be to find a God.
If I were to claim "A creator must be more complex than it's creation" the all someone would have to do to prove me wrong would be to find a creator that is less complex that it's creation.

Both are reasonable assertions because there is no evidence. It is up to the person making the positive claim to give the evidence (i.e. the theist must provide evidence for their God to counter the claim that it doesn't exist). You cannot be called to prove a negative if you assert something. It is up to the opposition to come up with proof FOR the existence.

Otherwise I put forward the following suggestion: "There exists a small pink dog at the centre of the Sun". This is my claim, your claim would be "The small pink dog doesn't exist". Since you cannot prove a negative, I could not rationally ask you to prove your claim, but I would have to prove mine. The burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim for the positive.

I am merely clarifying a fallacy that the creator MUST be as or more complex.

And I am merely pointing out how it is not a fallacy. You came up with a claim, it was challenged. You provided no evidence towards the observation that creators are always more complex than their creations. You gave not one example which was not refuted. You then proceeded to back out of the argument, and then you have the audacity to keep going on about it. Do you want a debate or not here? If you do, then provide some evidence to back up your claims. If not, accept that you have been defeated in your arguments so far. You don't have to give up your belief that you are right, but only accept that you have been beaten in a debate.