No, grades are proportional to wit.






Anthropologists and folklorists have debated the nature and definition of the word 'myth', as seperate from 'legend', 'folklore', etc. and have yet to find a clearly agreed upon definition of it- they do not, however, exclude factual basis to define myths. Could there been a Trojan War? Possibly, and even quite probably, does that mean that Gods were determining its fate, probably not. Thus, the myth of the fall of Illium seems to have some foundation to it, that is to say, 'a grain of truth'. But, ignorant as you are, you decide to redefine myth as something that has no truth in it what-so-ever, which would exclude actual myths, legends, folklore, etc. As well as most works of fiction.




If you had read, you would see that I have refuted your argument, but you decided to delete it and pass over it. Einstein did nto meet the standard for some subject- but he was an absolute genius in Science and Mathematics, and he passed it exceptionally. Those are the area where he made his mark, where people today observe with awe at his sheer genius, an idiot would not pass anything, he would fail, fall far beneath the standard in every respect, Einstein only didn't meet standard in certain respects, while being absolutely brilliant and exception in others.

You may have a point, if you actually ignored the facts.






Here's the bit that the tired old myth leaves out, Einstein was a prodigy in the Mathematics and Science, and his absolute mastery and genius in that area...actually showed in his results, where he was absolutely exceptional at it.







Everything you said shows a deal of ignorance of the man, his thoughts, and his life. Like the myth that he failed the entrance exam, which is only partly true, because he was only substandard in part of the exam, but was absolutely exception in the Maths and the Science- the area where he would leave his mark.

You attribute to him a primacy of imagination over knowledge, when that is the position he argue against in a famous debate between himself and the French Philosopher Henri Bergson.

You try to contrast his views with my own, when we are both in perfect agreement that casual natural laws determine everything in the universe.

In short, you invented an Einstein when the real Einstein stand in constrast to everything you argue for.







The whole of Biology and Genetics is against your position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_determinism

The very basis of genetics is that idea, that genes determine who you are, and scientists are always confirming that by discovering how our genetics leads to this and that.

Take Darwinian Evolutionary theory- we have certain mutation in the genes which gets passed down to the next generation, which, if it is adapted to the enviorment, would pass on to affect the gene pool, where those that are disadvantageous to survival will not be passed down. Do you mean to tell me that this model is wrong, when it has so clearly been shown to be true by another wealth of evidence? They are predetermined by their genes to be a certain way, and if this way is not adapted to its enviorment, it shall not be passed down.

It is simply a truism by now, one that really needs no defense, because all of science provides evidence for it. We are born with certain innate traits, and these traits are different from another person, Noam Chomsky has done much work to show us that we are born with an innate structure for grammar,

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro02/web3/rdeering.html

People usually object to this, not so much for science, but for the implication of the science, which as bad as saying




You ask for scientific proof without providing your own, but, since I have made a claim rather than a statement of scepticism (unlike you), I have provided.

But, as I have provided, I think that we are all aware of the truth of genetic determinism, in that the Bible itself puts into the mouth of God: 'Can a leopard change his spots?'







Simply to read my words is to prove this point






I have met many stupid people on the internet- you and Vega are among the stupidest.






Which is a lie, and which I have demonstrated is a lie many times.







Go to a hospital, and observe each new born infant, you will notice two things:

1. They are not exactly the same physically

2. They do not behave in the exact same way.

Go to a classroom, and observe the children, and we see the same two things crop up- they aren't the exactly the same as the other, and they think, behave, and are either more or less receptive than others.






The one that I use to beat you over the head with.






Any semblance to human genius.





Already did.

Not content to be wrong in every respect, you insist on continuing with your irrelevancies- so far as it strayed from the original OP that I am tempted, as with the tread, to abandon all discussion with you, as everyone has already realised that there is no point in 'debating' with you, in that you do not argue, you only ask irrelevant questions, and post non-sequiturs, and you proudly admit to being a troll. Almost everyone who has the misfortune of knowing you, and I can think of three people on the top of my head, will agree that you are stupid, and if you and Vega get along well in your mutual masturbation, then it is only because you are joined in stupidity.

You say that I have admitted defeat once before, which is dishonesty and libel, I have left off already showing that not only were you wrong, but that your accusations against me were wrong, and that any other comment would lead back into a circle because that's just how you troll, and if your trolling and your stupidity wear upon my patience, please do not mistake that as surrendering.