Off-Topic cannot logically apply to a multi-faceted Universe that contains multi-faceted creatures.

You are not only oversimplifying the complicated and multi-faceted attribute of "intelligence", but also basing a claim on a extremely limited sample of my very specific ability to articulate and debate. You are claiming there is a positive correlation between an idea's simplicity and the intelligence required to comprehend it, while a vast majority of the population would suggest the opposite. I am aware that I am wordier than many people, but do not believe this is the result of having less intelligence than you. In any case, I really don't want to make this a debate about our intelligence " I am a strong believer that the ethos of the debaters should be held independent of what they are arguing. I was not aware I had ever called similarities "meaningless" " only that the analogies you have put forth are not meaning from the perspective of understanding the Universe. Unless you can demonstrate that you do, in fact, understand the Universe better than I do, please do not say that I am ignorant. If I may be so bold, referring to yourself as a genius makes you sound very arrogant and does not lend significant credibility to your claims. If your claims have validity, let them stand for themselves. Your claim of doing "far more thinking than [I'll] ever do [myself]" is, as you might imagine, rather disrespectful and seems ridiculously confident given how little we know of each other. I am not skeptical of the poetic nature of your analogies, only of your belief that your "wisdom" is truly significant, especially to the degree that you think you have license to claim that all of humankind stop having focused/deliberate conversations. The vast majority of asteroids are not composed primarily of calcium. From my perspective, I seem to be drawing far more from reality and doing far more research than you are, so I respectfully request that you yourself research your own analogies; as I've already pointed out, all are quite significantly flawed and have only modest degrees of poetic correctness " you have given me no reason to believe that any are notable examples of a greater understanding of the Universe. I agree that without water there would not be humans. I confess I am a little confused at the purpose of "amoebae" in your claim. Are you saying that the same chemicals critical to a neural activity that makes us feel distinct from animals rely on its production from amoebas? Or that chemicals produced by amoebas in general allow humans to exist? Either way, you take the claim that ((NOT water) implies (NOT human)) and claim it implies ((water) is equivalent to (human)). This is a flawed argument from a simple logic point of view. Not A -> not B does not mean A and B are equivalent. Even poetically I wonder at why one would try to make this connection. I accept there are similarities between how humans behave and phenomenon, merely that they are generally not helpful in understanding the Universe. More specifically, such correlations do not offer a convincing arguments for your original claim (that "off-topic" cannot be logically applied). I have experience awe at the Universe, but did not think my personal feelings implied that I had some greater understanding than the rest of humanity, nor did I think such a feeling granted me license to claim authority over other's conversations. What distinguishes true statements from false statements?