Atheism the unscientific belief (part one, two, and three)

[Little Rik]

Imbecile.  
Lipton has studied all his life on the subject.
He got several degree so he is an expert in his field.
It is natural that there is always someone who criticize someone else.

So what's your point here?  That we shouldn't pay attention to criticism?  That all sources are equally credible?  They aren't.  Is it that we should ignore criticism when a person is roundly condemned by everyone in the field?  That's awfully convenient for you. ("Lipton remains on the sidelines of conventional discussions of epigenetics. Mainstream science has basically ignored him." -- Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment) The truth is that criticisms matter and some criticisms are more meaningful than others.  And the criticism that Bruce Lipton has accumulated by being a charlatan and a quack are quite relevant and meaningful.

You know yog what the masses were thinking about those guys that said for the first time that the planet earth is not the center of the universe and that the earth is not flat?
Just imagine if your brain allow.  
They said the same things that you just write in your post like........ charlatan and a quack and all the other bullshit so no yog, you just fail again by thinking that what the majority think is what is important.

Here's what Wikipedia says about the applied kinesiology which Lipton is pushing with his book:

Nearly all AK tests are subjective, relying solely on practitioner assessment of muscle response. Specifically, some studies have shown test-retest reliability, inter-tester reliability, and accuracy to have no better than chance correlations. Some skeptics have argued that there is no scientific understanding of the proposed underlying theory of a viscerosomatic relationship, and the efficacy of the modality is unestablished in some cases and doubtful in others. Skeptics have also dismissed AK as "quackery," "magical thinking," and a misinterpretation of the ideomotor effect. It has also been criticized on theoretical and empirical grounds, and characterized as pseudoscience. With only anecdotal accounts claiming to provide positive evidence for the efficacy of the practice, a review of peer-reviewed studies concluded that the "evidence to date does not support the use of [AK] for the diagnosis of organic disease or pre/subclinical conditions."

In 2014, a randomized, double-blind trial was conducted to evaluate applied kinesiology results. The output of that study equated successful identification of a material via applied kinesiology techniques as statistically no better than chance. The summation of the work concluded that "The research published by the Applied Kinesiology field itself is not to be relied upon, and in the experimental studies that do meet accepted standards of science, Applied Kinesiology has not demonstrated that it is a useful or reliable diagnostic tool upon which health decisions can be based."
[emphasis mine]

That's scientific studies showing that Lipton's chosen therapy to push works no better than chance.
That's a meaningful criticism.

Without the spirit of inventiveness everything will slow down and the goal will never be reached.
To be successful in life you always got to try new ways.
Lipton is such a person.
I may not agree with everything he say but i admire him.
Many things he says make a lot of sense like his work on cells.
Conventional science on the other hand is still ages behind and still doesn't know whether cells
carry consciousness or not so is not that conventional science is correct and Lipton wrong.
It is all about the fact that as far as conventional science has not officially find out whether cells carry consciousness or not it will disprove anyone who find out what it hasn't find out yet and that is dishonesty.
No need to say that also those who follow the same logic are also dishonest.