|
Log in to post
|
Print Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,250
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,250 |
Mac,
I completed the homework assignment you gave me in response to my 2 simple yes or no questions.
From 7:30PM to 5:30AM the following day? Even if you had stayed up all night doing nothing but reading the scientific published papers on those subjects, you would not have had enough time to cover the subjects once, much less actually get a handle on understanding the implications involved. whatever --Mac Wow! Here I thought you were giving me a homework assignment and now I find out you're giving a 4 year college curriculum! I can only read so much bullshit before taking time to rinse and spit!  All I asked you to do was answer 2 yes or no questions. Never mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
this is such a good point! if I were a religious person I'd latch onto evolution as part of the plan so fast!  if you assume there indeed was a creator then why is it a stretch to also assume he used tools like evolution to craft his world? and, in fact, many religious people have accepted this real science along with their faith. I believed it to be exactly that way at one time myself. It was not until my continuous love of reading about all findings scientific, from the annals of the accepted peer reviewed journals, that evidences as I cited above for Bob to investigate have turned up that have changed the theory via empirical and proofed works. What is the half life of Polonium? Is the Speed of Light a Constant, or has it been changing over time? What proof can we have that experiments performed today will show that the same experiment performed thousands of years ago would yield the identical result? These are only the beginnings. There's more. Lots more. But the way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time... --Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
...and how many folks still believe the earth is flat or that the fireball actually revolves around it?
I am 62 years old and have NEVER met anyone who believes that. Even natives in Nigeria knew about our Apollo moon flights. I call false flag. Leading into a kind of straw man. --Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,250
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,250 |
Mac, These are only the beginnings.
There's more.
Lots more.
But the way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time... Are you suggesting that the only way people are worthy of having a discussion with you is with them studying to show themselves competent to receive your wisdom?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
religions like to declare that they have THE TRUTH and they are very reluctant to accept new information because to do so exposes that they were wrong and that is not very good for business! so they reject science until it is so overwhelmingly proven as to truly be yesterday's news.
Here you and I are absolutely in agreement. I do not practice any religion. By definition. I am, however a Christian because I have accepted Christ. Matter of fact, a good and thorough understanding of what the bible is all about and what Christ taught underscores that in no uncertain terms. The letters to the seven churches in the book that is the Revelation of Jesus Christ (not "revelations" plural as many mistake it to be) makes that very plain. if I were to start a religion I would base it on science and reason and critical thinking and encourage the evaluation of new ideas. but, I guess it would not be a religion then! Such has already been established. Today's Secular Science camp meets - and exceeds - all definitions of the word, "religion" in no uncertain terms. The so-called Scientists are the Priests and there are followers blindly accepting whatever tales these Priests feed them, just as we can see some doing in this thread. They have never actually investigated the situation for themselves and, as we can also see in this thread, will not actually do so. With feet planted firmly in midair, the followers of this Relative Truth taunt me to give them a push. ---Max
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,250
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,250 |
Mac, With feet planted firmly in midair, the followers of this Relative Truth taunt me to give them a push. Maybe they should taunt you to place your feet back on the ground and realize that you aren't the oracle of god!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
Don,
The key to starting a religion would be to piggyback it on a very old and respected religion, and then to declare your religion as a fulfillment of the prophesies in the previous religion.
Sound familiar?
Does not sound familiar to me at all. And the reason is that you must also first prophecy at least 600 years in advance of an actual event that actually comes to fruition, you must also have other people besides yourself make these prophecies, for obvious reasons, and each and every prophecy made MUST happen right down to the minute kind of detail expressed in the OT about Christ.Several or more of those prophecies must also include some kind of miracles that are prophesied and actually happen. Virgin Birth, no, that's out, already been done. Resurrection of Life, ditto. Raising the dead? oops, can't use that 'un either. How about Healing the Sick? Don't forget thousands of witnesses, including historians who were NOT followers. Well, your work's cut out for ya, better get started. --Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,250
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,250 |
Mac's on a roll!
Everybody BACK UP! Hehe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,576
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,576 |
Barry Setterfield is not by any stretch of the imagination a mainstream scientist. He is a creationist astronomer who claims the speed of light has decayed and that this can be "proof" of a young earth. from Wikipedia...(and if you object to this source there are a multitude of others) Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.
The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes. Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
I object to *any* sources that do not come from the mainstream scientific journals. For good reason.
wickedpedia? seriously. Well, I'm serious, not sure about you at this point.
Keep placing your faith in your lying priests.
Your chosen religion takes MUCH more faith in mortals than my faith in Christ needs.
I'm a different sort of Christian than you may have encountered, see, I don't really give a bleep if you don't care about your mortal soul.
What I do defend is when you guys insist on saying that I must be less intelligent, or stupid, or a fool, this in the face of the numerous examples I have presented here over the years that I really am tested and proven to be in the 99th percentile IQ-wise.
The Internet Atheist typically must resort to ridicule rather than argument as a gentleman. That's another clue to me that the devil you types invariably will say you do not believe in actually exists. Lucifer does not care about nor demand that you believe in him, only that you serve his interests.
The funniest Internet Atheists are the ones who rant on about how they don't believe there is a God - because they are angry with Him.
--Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,576
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,576 |
Don,
The key to starting a religion would be to piggyback it on a very old and respected religion, and then to declare your religion as a fulfillment of the prophesies in the previous religion.
Sound familiar?
Does not sound familiar to me at all. And the reason is that you must also first prophecy at least 600 years in advance of an actual event that actually comes to fruition, you must also have other people besides yourself make these prophecies, for obvious reasons, and each and every prophecy made MUST happen right down to the minute kind of detail expressed in the OT about Christ.Several or more of those prophecies must also include some kind of miracles that are prophesied and actually happen. Virgin Birth, no, that's out, already been done. Resurrection of Life, ditto. Raising the dead? oops, can't use that 'un either. How about Healing the Sick? Don't forget thousands of witnesses, including historians who were NOT followers. Well, your work's cut out for ya, better get started. --Mac the main failing in your arguments is you base your opinions on "facts" that you have never witnessed nor do you have even a single credible source for a single one of them. show me a single modern virgin birth or a resurrection. none happen because these things cannot happen. they violate all of the laws that govern the universe. and you are not entitled to your own facts unless you can prove them! you are of course free to believe they happened. but you can never prove they happened. I can take you into a lab and prove gravity or genetics or the temperature at which water boils. and you can duplicate my proof anywhere, any time. and legions of other logical, rational people can do the same. that, my friend, is science! and just because there are a tiny number of "scientists" who claim to have proof the earth is 6000 years old or the speed of light is decaying does not make their contentions true. science is a very logical process that must be followed to the letter. it is certainly possible to falsify scientific claims but these are discovered rapidly because the claim can be tested independently. it is also possible to make mistakes in science but again these mistakes are caught and acknowledged quickly. and finally, science cannot prove that god does not exist. a true scientist will not say "god does not exist" instead he would say "there is currently insufficient evidence to support the existence of god". like it or not, faith and science are different. I can believe there truly is a Flying Spaghetti Monster but I cannot scientifically prove that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,576
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,576 |
I object to *any* sources that do not come from the mainstream scientific journals. For good reason. you won't find Barry Setterfield's claims supported in mainstream scientific journals. and you know this if you are being sincere. I'm not saying that definitely proves he is wrong but let's at least be honest...he is certainly not mainstream!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
the main failing in your arguments is you base your opinions on "facts" that you have never witnessed nor do you have even a single credible source for a single one of them.
I could waste my time citing credible sources from all of history, but experience with the Internet Atheist has informed me that such is always to no avail, for you all instantly discredit any sources that don't toe your party line anyway. As you've already done in this thread previously. That is a failing in your argument. show me a single modern virgin birth or a resurrection. none happen because these things cannot happen. they violate all of the laws that govern the universe. Which is precisely the point. God asked a man to ask him for a sign. When that man refused to come up with a request, God told him that the virgin shall conceive. The historical proofs are many, actually, I doubt if you'll really look into this, but a fellow named Josh McDowell is a good starting point, his book, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict is an excellent source, citations provided there. and you are not entitled to your own facts unless you can prove them! I am a free man in a free nation and I let no mere mortal, especially and not even you, inform me of what my entitlements are. You just gotta put up with me. you are of course free to believe they happened. You just contradicted yourself from the previous sentence... but you can never prove they happened. I can take you into a lab and prove gravity or genetics or the temperature at which water boils. and you can duplicate my proof anywhere, any time. and legions of other logical, rational people can do the same. that, my friend, is science! All you have proven here is that you are the one who does not know that history is not a science and any history can never be empirically proven via experiment. Also, as far as I can tell, I am under no obligation to prove anything at all to you or anyone else. and just because there are a tiny number of "scientists" who claim to have proof the earth is 6000 years old or the speed of light is decaying does not make their contentions true. science is a very logical process that must be followed to the letter. it is certainly possible to falsify scientific claims but these are discovered rapidly because the claim can be tested independently. it is also possible to make mistakes in science but again these mistakes are caught and acknowledged quickly. and finally, science cannot prove that god does not exist. a true scientist will not say "god does not exist" instead he would say "there is currently insufficient evidence to support the existence of god".[/quoie]
I see that you have no concept of the amount of times that the majority of mainstream scientists have been proven WRONG in many differing fields. Some of those wrong beliefs of mainstream science took 50 years or more, a generation to pass away, before those findings were finally admitted and corrected by the mainstream scientists.
[quote]like it or not, faith and science are different. I can believe there truly is a Flying Spaghetti Monster but I cannot scientifically prove that. Don't know what this has to do with anything. If there were many historical reports of people having seen your monster, including historical accounts entered into the history by those who did not prescribe to the notion, as is the case with Christ, it is considered by intelligent historians to be a historical proof. Again, the proper historian is not a scientist and never allows for preposterous notions of empirical proof. You are mixed up about this. Love yer rants though. --Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,250
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,250 |
Mac, With feet planted firmly in midair, the followers of this Relative Truth taunt me to give them a push. Have you gotten your feet out of midair yet? Have your followers "taunted" you to place your feet back on the ground? Do you feel good enough about your IQ score that you'll allow yourself to speak to mere mortals? Or do you just want to rant a bunch of nonsense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
you won't find Barry Setterfield's claims supported in mainstream scientific journals. and you know this if you are being sincere. I'm not saying that definitely proves he is wrong but let's at least be honest...he is certainly not mainstream! To my bookshelves: Barry teamed up with Trevor Norman of Flinders University in Adelaide, and in 1987 Flinders itself published their paper, "Atomic Constants, Light, and Time." Their math department had checked it and approved it and it was published with the Stanford Research Institute logo as well. One simply cannot get more "mainstream" than the Stanford Research Institute! Scientific American 267:6 (1992), p. 19;. J. Gribbin, New Scientist 9 July (1994) pp17
R. Matthews, Science 271 (1996), pp759
http://www.wnd.com/2004/07/25852/There are plenty more "mainstream" papers available where other scientists, even and especially the secular scientists, have studied Barry's work and came to the conclusion that, while his work creates a dilemma for them, it is nonetheless a good work and a scientific finding. I'm sitting here recalling a convention of same where one of the mainstream secular scientists up on the dias, whose name I can't remember now, stated that he reviewed and understood Barry's work, found it to be actual and real, but, stated that he just "did not want it to be so!" At least this one was honest about it. --Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
Have you gotten your feet out of midair yet? Have your followers "taunted" you to place your feet back on the ground?
Do you feel good enough about your IQ score that you'll allow yourself to speak to mere mortals?
Or do you just want to rant a bunch of nonsense?
I must ask your forgiveness for believing that you could restrain yourself from the ad hominem attack in this discussion. I do understand that it is all you got, though. --Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,576
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,576 |
I could waste my time citing credible sources from all of history, but experience with the Internet Atheist has informed me that such is always to no avail, for you all instantly discredit any sources that don't toe your party line anyway. As you've already done in this thread previously. no credible sources! God told him that the virgin shall conceive. this one is a scientific issue as well as an historical one. unless you are deluding yourself you would admit there can be absolutely no scientific proof of this virgin birth. you can take it on faith but you can never prove it! You just contradicted yourself from the previous sentence... nope. my point is there are things that are provable through science and there are things you simply must take on faith (if you claim to believe them). I see that you have no concept of the amount of times that the majority of mainstream scientists have been proven WRONG in many differing fields. Some of those wrong beliefs of mainstream science took 50 years or more, a generation to pass away, before those findings were finally admitted and corrected by the mainstream scientists. I covered this quite well when I acknowledged science always has mistakes and the goal is to test and correct them. unlike religion where you decide what you want to believe ahead of time and them scramble trying to find facts to support it! thanks! I enjoy your mental wanderings as well!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,250
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,250 |
Mac, I do understand that it is all you got, though. Whoa Mac. You're talking totally out of character. That's the lowest I've seen you sink. I realize now that you have delusions of grandeur, but I didn't realize you were trying to unseat Pope Francis. I didn't bring up your IQ. You did. I didn't place my feet in midair. You did. I didn't say people were taunting me from my place in midair to give them a push. You did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,576
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,576 |
you won't find Barry Setterfield's claims supported in mainstream scientific journals. and you know this if you are being sincere. I'm not saying that definitely proves he is wrong but let's at least be honest...he is certainly not mainstream! To my bookshelves: Barry teamed up with Trevor Norman of Flinders University in Adelaide, and in 1987 Flinders itself published their paper, "Atomic Constants, Light, and Time." Their math department had checked it and approved it and it was published with the Stanford Research Institute logo as well. One simply cannot get more "mainstream" than the Stanford Research Institute! Scientific American 267:6 (1992), p. 19;. J. Gribbin, New Scientist 9 July (1994) pp17
R. Matthews, Science 271 (1996), pp759
http://www.wnd.com/2004/07/25852/There are plenty more "mainstream" papers available where other scientists, even and especially the secular scientists, have studied Barry's work and came to the conclusion that, while his work creates a dilemma for them, it is nonetheless a good work and a scientific finding. I'm sitting here recalling a convention of same where one of the mainstream secular scientists up on the dias, whose name I can't remember now, stated that he reviewed and understood Barry's work, found it to be actual and real, but, stated that he just "did not want it to be so!" At least this one was honest about it. --Mac again, he is certainly NOT mainstream. in fact, his views on creationist science are very much fringe. now you can single him out in all of science and decide you are convinced that this odd man out has the truth but if you are being honest with yourself you must acknowledge that his motivations (to prove his religious views have scientific validity) at least make him suspect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,576
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,576 |
OK. I see we have hit page 10 and we have not resolved this issue yet!  So I'm gonna get off the merry-go-round right here. But before I go... Mac, I can see you are a very intelligent guy and obviously I have great respect for your music skills and you are a dang good resource here in the forum. We'll just have to disagree on the whole religion and science thing! I did enjoy the conversation and I just want to be sure and say, although it was spirited, I hope I did not offend you as that was never my intention! So g'nite!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ask sales and support questions about Band-in-a-Box using natural language.
ChatPG's knowledge base includes the full Band-in-a-Box User Manual and sales information from the website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Henry Clarke: Revolutionize Your Band-in-Box® Tracks with Regenerating Function
User Video: Next-Level AI Music Editing with ACE Studio and Band-in-a-Box®
Band-in-a-Box® 2024 German for Windows is Here!
Band-in-a-Box® 2024 für Windows Deutsch ist verfügbar!
Wir waren fleißig und haben über 50 neue Funktionen und eine erstaunliche Sammlung neuer Inhalte hinzugefügt, darunter 222 RealTracks, neue RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, "Songs with Vocals" Artist Performance Sets, abspielbare RealTracks Set 3, abspielbare RealDrums Set 2, zwei neue Sets von "RealDrums Stems", XPro Styles PAK 6, Xtra Styles PAK 17 und mehr!
Paket | Was ist Neu
Update Your PowerTracks Pro Audio 2024 Today!
The Newest RealBand 2024 Update is Here!
The newest RealBand 2024 Build 5 update is now available!
Download and install this to your RealBand 2024 for updated print options, streamlined loading and saving of .SGU & MGU (BB) files, and to add a number of program adjustments that address user-reported bugs and concerns.
This free update is available to all RealBand 2024 users. To learn more about this update and download it, head to www.pgmusic.com/support.realband.htm#20245
The Band-in-a-Box® Flash Drive Backup Option
Today (April 5) is National Flash Drive Day!
Did you know... not only can you download your Band-in-a-Box® Pro, MegaPAK, or PlusPAK purchase - you can also choose to add a flash drive backup copy with the installation files for only $15? It even comes with a Band-in-a-Box® keychain!
For the larger Band-in-a-Box® packages (UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, Audiophile Edition), the hard drive backup copy is available for only $25. This will include a preinstalled and ready to use program, along with your installation files.
Backup copies are offered during the checkout process on our website.
Already purchased your e-delivery version, and now you wish you had a backup copy? It's not too late! If your purchase was for the current version of Band-in-a-Box®, you can still reach out to our team directly to place your backup copy order!
Note: the Band-in-a-Box® keychain is only included with flash drive backup copies, and cannot be purchased separately.
Handy flash drive tip: Always try plugging in a USB device the wrong way first? If your flash drive (or other USB plug) doesn't have a symbol to indicate which way is up, look for the side with a seam on the metal connector (it only has a line across one side) - that's the side that either faces down or to the left, depending on your port placement.
Update your Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows® Today!
Update your Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows for free with build 1111!
With this update, there's more control when saving images from the Print Preview window, we've added defaults to the MultiPicker for sorting and font size, updated printing options, updated RealTracks and other content, and addressed user-reported issues with the StylePicker, MIDI Soloists, key signature changes, and more!
Learn more about this free update for Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows at www.pgmusic.com/support_windowsupdates.htm#1111
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums66
Topics81,760
Posts737,099
Members38,572
| |
Most Online2,537
Jan 19th, 2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean