|
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: 3,792
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,792 |
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: 3,792
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,792 |
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: 3,792
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,792 |
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: 3,792
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,792 |
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: 3,792
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,792 |
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: 3,792
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,792 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New RealTracks Released with Band-in-a-Box 2025!
We’ve expanded the Band-in-a-Box® RealTracks library with 202 incredible new RealTracks (in sets 449-467) across Jazz, Blues, Funk, World, Pop, Rock, Country, Americana, and Praise & Worship—featuring your most requested styles!
Jazz, Blues & World (Sets 449–455):
These RealTracks includes “Soul Jazz” with Neil Swainson (bass), Mike Clark (drums), Charles Treadway (organ), Miles Black (piano), and Brent Mason (guitar). Enjoy “Requested ’60s” jazz, classic acoustic blues with Colin Linden, and more of our popular 2-handed piano soloing. Plus, a RealTracks first—Tango with bandoneon, recorded in Argentina!
Rock & Pop (Sets 456–461):
This collection includes Disco, slap bass ‘70s/‘80s pop, modern and ‘80s metal with Andy Wood, and a unique “Songwriter Potpourri” featuring Chinese folk instruments, piano, banjo, and more. You’ll also find a muted electric guitar style (a RealTracks first!) and “Producer Layered Guitar” styles for slick "produced" sound.
Country, Americana & Praise (Sets 462–467):
We’ve added new RealTracks across bro country, Americana, praise & worship, vintage country, and songwriter piano. Highlights include Brent Mason (electric guitar), Eddie Bayers (drums), Doug Jernigan (pedal steel), John Jarvis (piano), Glen Duncan (banjo, mandolin & fiddle), Mike Harrison (electric bass) and more—offering everything from modern sounds to heartfelt Americana styles
Check out all the 202 New RealTracks (in sets 456-467)
And, if you are looking for more, the 2025 49-PAK (for $49) includes an additional 20 RealTracks with exciting new sounds and genre-spanning styles. Enjoy RealTracks firsts like Chinese instruments (guzheng & dizi), the bandoneon in an authentic Argentine tango trio, and the classic “tic-tac” baritone guitar for vintage country.
You’ll also get slick ’80s metal guitar from Andy Wood, modern metal with guitarist Nico Santora, bass player Nick Schendzielos, and drummer Aaron Stechauner, more praise & worship, indie-folk, modern/bro country with Brent Mason, and “Songwriter Americana” with Johnny Hiland.
Plus, enjoy user-requested styles like Soul Jazz RealDrums, fast Celtic Strathspey guitar, and Chill Hop piano & drums!
The 2025 49-PAK is loaded with other great new add-ons as well. Learn more about the 2025 49-PAK!
Bonus PAKs for Band-in-a-Box 2025 for Mac!
With your version 2025 for Mac Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, Audiophile Edition or PlusPAK purchase, we'll include a Bonus PAK full of great new Add-ons FREE! Or upgrade to the 2025 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 2025 RealCombos Booster PAK:
-For Pro customers, this includes 33 new RealTracks and 65+ new RealStyles.
-For MegaPAK customers, this includes 29 new RealTracks and 45+ new RealStyles.
-For UltraPAK customers, this includes 20 new RealStyles.
- Look Ma! More MIDI 13: Country & Americana
- Instrumental Studies Set 22: 2-Hand Piano Soloing - Rhythm Changes
- MIDI SuperTracks Set 44: Jazz Piano
- Artist Performance Set 17: Songs with Vocals 7
- Playable RealTracks Set 4
- RealDrums Stems Set 7: Jazz with Mike Clark
- SynthMaster Sounds and Styles (with audio demos)
- 128 GM MIDI Patch Audio Demos.
Looking for more great add-ons, then upgrade to the 2025 49-PAK for just $49 and you'll get:
- 20 Bonus Unreleased RealTracks and RealDrums with 20 RealStyles,
- FLAC Files (lossless audio files) for the 20 Bonus Unreleased RealTracks and RealDrums
- Look Ma! More MIDI 14: SynthMaster,
- Instrumental Studies Set 23: More '80s Hard Rock Soloing,
- MIDI SuperTracks Set 45: More SynthMaster
- Artist Performance Set 18: Songs with Vocals 8
- RealDrums Stems Set 8: Pop, Funk & More with Jerry Roe
Learn more about the Bonus PAKs for Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac®!
New! Xtra Styles PAK 20 for Band-in-a-Box 2025 and Higher for Mac!
Xtra Styles PAK 20 for Mac & Windows Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher) is here with 200 brand new RealStyles!
We're excited to bring you our latest and greatest in the all new Xtra Styles PAK 20 for Band-in-a-Box! This fresh installment is packed with 200 all-new styles spanning the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres you've come to expect, as well as the exciting inclusion of electronic styles!
In this PAK you’ll discover: Minimalist Modern Funk, New Wave Synth Pop, Hard Bop Latin Groove, Gospel Country Shuffle, Cinematic Synthwave, '60s Motown, Funky Lo-Fi Bossa, Heavy 1980s Metal, Soft Muted 12-8 Folk, J-Pop Jazz Fusion, and many more!
All the Xtra Styles PAKs 1 - 20 are on special for only $29 each (reg $49), or get all 209 PAKs for $199 (reg $399)! Order now!
Learn more and listen to demos of the Xtra Styles PAK 20.
Video: Xtra Styles PAK 20 Overview & Styles Demos: Watch now!
Note: The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 20 requires the 2025 or higher UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition. They will not work with the Pro or MegaPAK version because they need the RealTracks from the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
New! XPro Styles PAK 9 for Band-in-a-Box 2025 and higher for Mac!
We've just released XPro Styles PAK 9 for Mac & Windows Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher) with 100 brand new RealStyles, plus 29 RealTracks/RealDrums!
We've been hard at it to bring you the latest and greatest in this 9th installment of our popular XPro Styles PAK series! Included are 75 styles spanning the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres (25 styles each) that fans have come to expect, as well as 25 styles in this volume's wildcard genre: funk & R&B!
If you're itching to get a sneak peek at what's included in XPro Styles PAK 9, here is a small helping of what you can look forward to: Funky R&B Horns, Upbeat Celtic Rock, Jazz Fusion Salsa, Gentle Indie Folk, Cool '60s Soul, Funky '70s R&B, Smooth Jazz Hip Hop, Acoustic Rockabilly Swing, Funky Reggae Dub, Dreamy Retro Latin Jazz, Retro Soul-Rock Fusion, and much more!
Special Pricing! Until July 31, 2024, all the XPro Styles PAKs 1 - 9 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the XPro Styles PAK Bundle for only $149 (reg. $299)! Order now!
Learn more and listen to demos of XPro Styles PAKs.
Video: XPro Styles PAK 9 Overview & Styles Demos: Watch now!
XPro Styles PAKs require Band-in-a-Box® 2025 or higher and are compatible with ANY package, including the Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, and Audiophile Edition.
New! Xtra Styles PAK 20 for Band-in-a-Box 2025 and Higher for Windows!
Xtra Styles PAK 20 for Windows & Mac Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher) is here with 200 brand new RealStyles!
We're excited to bring you our latest and greatest in the all new Xtra Styles PAK 20 for Band-in-a-Box! This fresh installment is packed with 200 all-new styles spanning the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres you've come to expect, as well as the exciting inclusion of electronic styles!
In this PAK you’ll discover: Minimalist Modern Funk, New Wave Synth Pop, Hard Bop Latin Groove, Gospel Country Shuffle, Cinematic Synthwave, '60s Motown, Funky Lo-Fi Bossa, Heavy 1980s Metal, Soft Muted 12-8 Folk, J-Pop Jazz Fusion, and many more!
All the Xtra Styles PAKs 1 - 20 are on special for only $29 each (reg $49), or get all 209 PAKs for $199 (reg $399)! Order now!
Learn more and listen to demos of the Xtra Styles PAK 20.
Video: Xtra Styles PAK 20 Overview & Styles Demos: Watch now!
Note: The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 20 requires the 2025 or higher UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition. They will not work with the Pro or MegaPAK version because they need the RealTracks from the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
New! XPro Styles PAK 9 for Band-in-a-Box 2025 and higher for Windows!
We've just released XPro Styles PAK 9 for Windows & Mac Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher) with 100 brand new RealStyles, plus 29 RealTracks/RealDrums!
We've been hard at it to bring you the latest and greatest in this 9th installment of our popular XPro Styles PAK series! Included are 75 styles spanning the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres (25 styles each) that fans have come to expect, as well as 25 styles in this volume's wildcard genre: funk & R&B!
If you're itching to get a sneak peek at what's included in XPro Styles PAK 9, here is a small helping of what you can look forward to: Funky R&B Horns, Upbeat Celtic Rock, Jazz Fusion Salsa, Gentle Indie Folk, Cool '60s Soul, Funky '70s R&B, Smooth Jazz Hip Hop, Acoustic Rockabilly Swing, Funky Reggae Dub, Dreamy Retro Latin Jazz, Retro Soul-Rock Fusion, and much more!
Special Pricing! Until July 31, 2024, all the XPro Styles PAKs 1 - 9 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the XPro Styles PAK Bundle for only $149 (reg. $299)! Order now!
Learn more and listen to demos of XPro Styles PAKs.
Video: XPro Styles PAK 9 Overview & Styles Demos: Watch now!
XPro Styles PAKs require Band-in-a-Box® 2025 or higher and are compatible with ANY package, including the Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, and Audiophile Edition.
Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac®: VST3 Plugin Support
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac® now includes support for VST3 plugins, alongside VST and AU. Use them with MIDI or audio tracks for even more creative possibilities in your music production.
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Macs®: VST3 Plugin Support
Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac®: Using VST3 Plugins
Join the conversation on our forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums58
Topics84,410
Posts778,888
Members39,649
| |
Most Online25,754
Jan 24th, 2025
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean