Practical effects are better than CGI

If you were to observe the limitations of practical effects, you would begin to understand the benefits of CGI. Of course it's much more realistic than a computer just like a real movie is more realistic than an animated version of it. However, what CGI enables is something as spectacular as avatar to be made. What many people of today's age are beginning to understand is that art is imagination represented into a format for other's to interpret. Let us say you imagined a film about talking ants, do you think there is a possible way to create this without CGI? However let us stick to effects only. When it comes to effects; nothing compres to CGI. Sure a wound made by a flour mix looks a bit more realistic than one edited onto the arm on a computer but in the end the art and the effect is the same unless one chooses to zoom into their screen by 100x or some ridiculous amount where the difference between a real video and CGi pixellation can be observed. I am passionate about technology and do not understand all these sentimental musicians or 'practicalists' (I am aware that is not a word but it serves its purpose). In an analogical sense I can say the the 80's bands; The Beatles, Queen, Elton John and ABBA all made fabulous pieces of music with 'real' physical instrument playing. Nonetheless, the music produced by some DJ's who have either remixed 80's songs or created wonderful electro pieces is also absolutely fantastic. I do not see any reason to see it as less or more suited to its purpose merely based on the fact that a computer was used to artifically generate it? If the result is near perfection in terms of representing what the artist, in this case the film director, had in mind then I believe using CGI to enable this representation is by all means fantastic. There is not reason to hate it because it is 'computer generated' if the result it equally, if not more, artistic and creative. Let us see the purpose of a film; to entertain its audience whilst delivering a message or representing a storyline consisting of several characters. Then let us understand the purpose of effects; to enhance or significantly represent what the artist (film director) imagined and display it very realistically for viewer's to comprehend and feel the full effect of (this was why is was called effects, to give a desired visual effect). So if computer generated images give a fantastic image of a creature (such as Smeagol/Gollum from L.O.T.R.) that practical effects would have wasted far more time and materials to create then I say go CGI! Even something as simple as the wound of a warrior who just lost a battle (for example in the film 300) would have means a lot of red paste and flour mixed skin when CGI editing not only can create beautiful and exact shades of red and motion of blood but also can do it in a faster amount of time than physically making a fake wound for every warrior. In conclusion, in terms of time, material and cost effectiveness when showing very in-depth artificial characters (which was specifically why George Lucas waited to make the first three Star Wars movies after the last Three since the first three simply had too many people int he battle scenes for practical effects to handle) I believe there is sufficient evidence and past examples to prove that despite the inauthenticity of the method to produce the effect, the effects themselves, certainly on a large scene with many unreal characters, are better produced by CGi than practical effects.