|
Log in to post
|
Print Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251 |
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: 4,251
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251 |
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: 4,251
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251 |
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: 4,251
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251 |
Mac's on a roll!
Everybody BACK UP! Hehe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,947
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,947 |
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: 3,947
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,947 |
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: 3,947
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,947 |
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: 4,251
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251 |
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: 3,947
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,947 |
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: 4,251
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251 |
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: 3,947
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,947 |
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: 3,947
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,947 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last Chance! The Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac® Special Ends Today (May 31, 2026) at 11:59pm PDT!
Time really is running out! Save up to 50% on Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac® upgrades and receive a FREE Bonus PAK—only when you order by 11:59 PM PDT today!
We've added many major new features and new content in a redesigned Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac®!
Version 2026 introduces a modernized GUI redesign across the program, with updated toolbars, refreshed windows, smoother workflows, and a new Dark Mode option. There’s also a new side toolbar for quicker access to commonly used windows, and the new Multi-View feature lets you arrange multiple windows as layered panels without overlap, making it easier to customize your workspace.
Another exciting new addition is the amazing new AI-Notes feature, which can transcribe polyphonic audio into MIDI. View the results in notation or play them back as MIDI, and choose whether to transcribe an entire track or transcribe specific parts like drums, bass, guitars/piano, or vocals. There's over 100 new features in Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac®.
There's an amazing collection of new content too, including 202 RealTracks, new RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, “Songs with Vocals” Artist Performance Sets, Playable RealTracks Set 5, two RealDrums Stems sets, and much more!
Upgrade your Band-in-a-Box for Mac® to save up to 50% on most Band-in-a-Box® 2026 upgrade packages!
Plus, when you order your Band-in-a-Box® 2026 Mac upgrade during our special, you'll receive a Free Bonus PAK of exciting new add-ons.
If you need any help deciding which package is the best option for you, just let us know. We are here to help!
Band-in-a-Box® 2026 Mac Special Offers Extended Until May 31st!
Good news- we've extended our Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac® special offers until May 31, 2026!
Band-in-a-Box® 2026 is packed with major new features, enhancements, and an incredible lineup of new content! The program now sports a sleek, modern GUI redesign across the entire interface, including updated toolbars, refreshed windows, smoother workflows, a new dark mode option, and more. The brand-new side toolbar provides quicker access to key windows, while the new Multi-View feature lets you arrange multiple windows as layered panels without overlap, creating a flexible, clutter-free workspace. We have an amazing new “AI-Notes” feature. This transcribes polyphonic audio into MIDI so you can view it in notation or play it back as MIDI. You can transcribe an entire track (all pitched instruments and drums) or focus on individual parts like drums, bass, guitars/piano, or vocals. There's an amazing collection of new content too, including 202 RealTracks, new RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, “Songs with Vocals” Artist Performance Sets, Playable RealTracks Set 5, two RealDrums Stems sets, and much more!
There are over 100 new features in Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac®.
When you order purchase Band-in-a-Box® 2026 before 11:59 PM PDT on May 31st, you'll also receive a Free Bonus PAK packed with exciting new add-ons.
Check out the Band-in-a-Box® for Mac packages page to find the best package for you.
Holiday Weekend Hours
It's Victoria Day Long Weekend in Canada. Our Customer Service hours are:
Saturday, May 16: Closed
Sunday, May 17: Closed
Monday, May 18: 8:00am - 4:00pm
Regular hours resume Tuesday, May 19th!
Today's the Last Day of the Band-in-a-Box 2026® for Mac Special!
Order before 11:59pm PDT today (May 15, 2026) to save up to 50% off your Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac® upgrade and receive a FREE Bonus PAK loaded with great new Add-ons to use with this new version!
Don't wait - order today!
Check out all the new features in the redesigned Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac®!
Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac - Special Offers End at 11:59pm PDT on Friday, May 15th, 2026!
Order before 11:59pm PDT on Friday, May 15th and SAVE up to 50% on most Band-in-a-Box® version 2026 for Mac Upgrade packages... and that's not all! With your version 2026 for Mac purchase, we'll include a Bonus PAK full of great new Add-ons FREE! Upgrade to the 2026 49-PAK to receive even more NEW Add-ons including 20 additional RealTracks... that's 222 NEW RealTracks available with version Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac!
Upgrade to Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac® today for as little as $49! Check out the Band-in-a-Box® packages page for all available purchase options.
Learn more about the Free Bonus PAK and 49-PAK here.
If you have any questions about which package is the best option for you, just let us know. We're here to help!
202 New RealTracks Released with Band-in-a-Box 2026!
With Band-in-a-Box® 2026, we've released 202 incredible new RealTracks (in sets 468-488) in a variety of genres—featuring your most requested styles!
Jazz, Funk & World (Sets 468-475):
Our new jazz, funk & blues RealTracks include a groovin’ collection of RealTracks and RealDrums! These include more requested “soul jazz” RealTracks featuring artists Neil Swainson (bass), Charles Treadway (organ), Brent Mason (guitar), and Wes Little (drums). There are new “smooth jazz” styles (4), which include a RealTracks first: muted trumpet, as well as slick new smooth jazz brushes options for drums. Blues lovers will be thrilled—there are more “classic acoustic blues” styles, including guitar (5), bass (4), and drums (10) with blues master Colin Linden, featuring understated and tasty background acoustic soloing, plus brushes drums and acoustic bass. There are also new electric blues RealTracks, including electric blues with PG favorite Johnny Hiland (3) and soulful electric slide guitar from Colin Linden (4). If you love funk & gospel, there are great new options this year, including gospel organ (3) from Charles Treadway, as well as new funk, tango, and rock ’n’ roll drums (3) and bass (1). And for big, bold arrangements, we have uptempo soul horns (4) featuring a three-part hip horn section with options for a full mix or stems of each individual horn — plus an accompanying rhythm section (4) of drums, bass, guitar, and electric piano!
Rock & Pop (Sets 476–482):
Our new rock & pop RealTracks bring a powerful mix of requested favorites, fresh genres, and modern chart-inspired styles! We have more of our popular “Producer Layered Acoustic Guitars (15)” featuring Band-in-a-Box favorite Brent Mason. We’ve continued our much-requested disco styles (10), and added new Celtic guitar (5) with a more basic, accessible approach than our previous Drop-D or DADGAD offerings. There are also highly requested yacht rock styles (17), inspired by the smooth, polished soft-rock sound of the late ’70s and early ’80s — laid-back grooves, silky electric pianos, warm textures, elegant harmonic movement, and pristine production aesthetics. Fans of heavier styles will love our new glam metal (13), capturing the flashy, high-energy sound of ’80s arena-ready guitar rock. We also have a set of rootsy modern-folk rock (18), with a warm, organic sound combining contemporary folk textures and driving acoustic strumming. And we’ve added lots of new modern pop styles (16) — the kinds of sounds you’re hearing on the radio today, featuring exciting new drums, synths, and cutting-edge RealTracks arrangements.
Country, & Americana (Sets 483–488):
Our new country & Americana RealTracks deliver a rich collection of acoustic, electric, and roots-inspired styles! We have new country pop (9) with legendary guitarist Brent Mason. There is also a potpourri (14) of bouzouki, guitars, banjo, and more, perfect for adding texture and character to contemporary acoustic arrangements. We’ve added funky country guitar (5) with PG favorite Brent Mason, along with classic pedal steel styles (5) featuring steel great Doug Jernigan. There are more country songwriter styles (8) that provide intimate, rootsy foundations for storytelling and modern Americana writing. Finally, we have “background soloing” acoustic guitar (12) with Brent Mason — simpler, but still very tasty acoustic lines designed to sit beautifully behind vocals or act as a subtle standalone solo part.
Check out all the 202 new RealTracks (in sets 468-488)!
And, if you are looking for more, the 2026 49-PAK (for $49) includes an impressive collection of 20 bonus RealTracks, featuring exciting and inspiring additions to add to your RealTracks library. You'll get new country-rhythm guitar styles from PG Music favorites Johnny Hiland and Brent Mason, along with modern-pop grooves that capture today’s radio-ready sound! There are also new indie-folk styles with guitar, bass, 6-string bass used as a high-chording instrument, acoustic guitar, and banjo. Plus, dedicated "cymbal fills" RealDrums provide an added layer that work very well with low-key folky styles with other percussion.
The 2026 49-PAK is loaded with other great new add-ons as well. Learn more about the 2026 49-PAK!
2026 Free Bonus PAK & 49-PAK for Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac®!
With your version 2026 for Mac Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, Audiophile Edition or PlusPAK purchase, we'll include a Bonus PAK full of great new Add-ons for FREE! Or upgrade to the 2026 49-PAK for only $49 to receive even more NEW Add-ons including 20 additional RealTracks!
These PAKs are loaded with additional add-ons to supercharge your Band-in-a-Box®!
This Free Bonus PAK includes:
- The 2026 RealCombos Booster PAK:
-For Pro customers, this includes 27 new RealTracks and 23 new RealStyles.
-For MegaPAK customers, this includes 25 new RealTracks and 23 new RealStyles.
-For UltraPAK customers, this includes 12 new RealStyles.
- MIDI Styles Set 92: Look Ma! More MIDI 15: Latin Jazz
- MIDI SuperTracks Set 46: Piano & Organ
- Instrumental Studies Set 24: Groovin' Blues Soloing
- Artist Performance Set 19: Songs with Vocals 9
- Playable RealTracks Set 5
- RealDrums Stems Set 9: Cool Brushes
- SynthMaster Sounds Set 1 (with audio demos)
- iOS Android Band-in-a-Box® App
Looking for more great add-ons, then upgrade to the 2026 49-PAK for just $49 and you'll get:
- 20 Bonus Unreleased RealTracks and RealDrums with 20 RealStyle.
- FLAC Files (lossless audio files) for the 20 Bonus Unreleased RealTracks and RealDrums
- MIDI Styles Set 93: Look Ma! More MIDI 16: SynthMaster
- MIDI SuperTracks Set 47: More SynthMaster
- Instrumental Studies 25 - Soul Jazz Guitar Soloing
- Artist Performance Set 20: Songs with Vocals 10
- RealDrums Stems Set 10: Groovin' Sticks
- SynthMaster Sounds & Styles Set 2 (sounds & styles with audio demos)
Learn more about the Bonus PAK and 49-PAK for Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac®!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums57
Topics86,404
Posts804,434
Members40,112
| |
Most Online64,515
Apr 8th, 2026
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean