Boho Chic – Casima
Header designs – 1
So recently while updating my blog layout, I stumbled upon a new found – Designing headers. I had scoured the internet for a good hear background but for some reason none of them appealed to me, so I decided to create some of my own headers from scratch.
Below are two of them that I created, tell me what you guys think. And feel free to use them in your blogs!
This one has an ethnic vibe to it and I had so much fun creating it!
This one is a little on the minimalistic side, and I used this for my photo blog 700capturedmemories.wordpress.com
P.S. As I am still a beginner in this area, any constructive criticism is greatly appreciated! Leave below your tips and let me know what you think! And if you have any requests for a customized header, don’t think twice!
Bloglovin’
What matters?
She sat near the window
Pen in hand,
Lost in thoughts
Of gain and loss
Did it matter?
Was the question she asked
All these things?
All these beings?
Were they here to stay
Or vanish on a chosen day?
Were promises really kept?
Or were they made in jest?
Would we stay forever young?
Or would our graves be dug?
Had we tried our best?
Had we passed this test?
Were we prepared?
For the results we’d get?
Had we flowed with the tide?
Had life taken us for a ride?
Had we sailed successfully?
Or did we sink slowly?
Think of these questions now
Before you are forced to think
And it is already to late to change
The outcome of your fate.
Think of this world as a bridge
And take the one true path
To eternal bliss.
Discovering Wordle!
My first Wordle! I’m so proud! *Sniff* đ
Check out these awesome other Wordles by WordPress Bloggers!
12 Valuable Wordle Tips You Must Read…Word Clouds in Education Series: Part 1
Analysis of Dulce est Decorum est
The title ‘Dulce est Decorum est’ means, ‘How sweet and fitting it is to die’, so merely by just looking at the title it tells is that this is a poem about death. The title is written in Latin which makes the poem sound very old but powerful at the same time as Latin is a powerful language till today.
The poem is very powerful and it conveys the same message throughout, ‘War is devastatingâ, and this gives the readers the exact feeling that the poet wanted us to have. The poet uses powerful devices like similes, metaphors and most of all very strong imagery to convey the sense of hopelessness and loss. The 1st line grabs and pulls the reader in the poem. The poet uses simile in the first line ‘like old beggars under sack’ which shows that the soldiers had been fighting so much that they had become like beggars who hadnât slept for days. The strong use of figurative language shows a clear image of the poetâs emotions. In line two, when he says, ‘Coughing like hags…â it shows us that poet was very angry, frustrated but at the same time sad and depressed because his heart went out to the soldiers. The word ‘trudge’ in line four shows us how tired and hungry the soldiers were as they werenât running but trudging as though they were using up all the time they had and walking really slowly because they knew that once they entered the war, there would be no turning back. ‘Men marched asleep…’ these three words create a very powerful image in our mind and gives rise to very intense emotions. The line, ‘Drunk with fatigue, deaf even to the hoots’, tells us that the soldiers had been fighting for so long that they were so tired and had no idea what was going on, They were fighting just for the sake of it. They also had heard so much noise that they were so used to it they couldnât even hear the hoots.
The poet describes the droppings of gas-shells as ‘softly’ which tells us that here was no way of surviving from them as you wouldnât even hear them coming. In line 7, he says ‘deaf even to the hoots’ but in line 8 he says ‘Gas! Gas! Quick boys!’ and then he says there was an ‘ecstasy of fumbling’ which tells us how disturbingly the soldiers had got up from their sleep and were fumbling to put on their masks, in order to save themselves from the gas. The phrase ‘ecstasy of fumbling’ is also an oxymoron as it shows us the intense fumbling that the soldiers were doing as if they were still very young and in ecstasy, but here it portrayed the opposite. The author uses ‘floundering like a man in fire…’ which shows how much the soldiers were confused and just dragging themselves in hopes that the war would get over soon. The poet shows us that they didnât have time when he says âthe wagon we flung him in’ which tells us that there wasnât a single moment to lose as they didnât even have time to put their fellow soldier’s body properly and had to just fling it in.
The use of words such as ‘guttering’, ‘choking’, ‘drowning’ arise such ghastly images in our mind that it is painful to even think about it. The description of the face of the man is very vivid, ‘white eyes withering in his face’ and ‘his face like a devil’s sick of sin’ which shows how bad the war was and dying was not at all sweet and fitting. The phrase ‘of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues’ tells us how the wounds made by the war, mentally not physically were so ugly that they were incurable and these innocent people did not need to see all of this.
In the third last line he addresses the reader himself almost as if saying very sadly and giving us advice that the ‘Old lie – How sweet and fitting it is to die for our country’ is nothing but an old lie which only brings more and more deaths to the country. The whole poem also emphasizes the stark contrast of the poem with the title, as it is not at all sweet to die in such a way.
All in all this poem gives us a very realistic idea of what war is and describes it very clearly stating that war brings devastation, frustration and sadness for many years to come, and that this bruise can never be cured no matter what you do.
Abuse of English on the World Wide Web
Recently I was going through a friend’s Instagram profile and I noticed this comment posted by a guy which read:
“YOu R vEry bEaUtIfUl’ Now anybody in their right state of mind, having a proper knowledge of English and having studied at least 1st grade would figure out that this form of English is completely appalling and unacceptable.
I just can’t stand people who use symbols like ‘@ng3l’ or ‘c00l’, I mean have we run out of letters? Or is it too mainstream to write in proper English?
Anytime I get a request from someone whose name goes like ‘D@rk @ng3l’ or ‘d@sh!ng pr!nc3~*’, I click decline and block, because I know it will be a complete waste of time to even try and converse with this person because all I will do is pick out every single one of their English mistakes and get frustrated, therefore it is better just not to add them.
Another thing that irritates me so much is when people substitute same sounding letters, i.e. ‘idyat’ instead of ‘idiot’, I mean it is going to take you the same amount of time to type it out, so why not type out the right thing? It’s understandable when you type ‘brb’ instead of ‘be right back’, but nowadays people have the tendency to shorten almost everything, even when its a matter of one letter!
Like last Friday at lunch my 5 year old cousin was messaging her brother and she asked what the spelling of ‘can’ was and somebody said ‘cn’; I mean she’s 5! If you tell her the wrong spelling in her early learning years, what do you think she is going to write in her school, ‘I cn sing’? Is that really what you want your kids to write in their exams? I think not! Then why don’t we all put some effort in firstly trying to use the RIGHT form of English, and secondly try NOT to make the next generation educated illiterates.
Vintage Vibe
Thoery of Evolution: Factual or just a theory?
So recently I have been having a lot of discussions with my friends about religion and belief or lack of belief, and so I thought it would was time I did a post on why I feel religion makes more sense than atheism.
Atheists/Darwinists claim that there is no Creator, and everything evolved out of nothing, or inanimate matter.
Just by reading this claim, a logical human being would deduce that it is not possible for living things to evolve from non-living matter, simply because of the fact that inanimate matter doesnât possess the complex features and details that are present in living cells.
In order to prove this claim, American chemist Stanley Miller carried out an experiment in 1953 using gases that he claimed existed in the primitive atmosphere of the earth. He combined these gases and added energy to the mixture to create several amino acids present in the structure of proteins.
Although this did prove slightly the theory of evolution, only a few years later this experiment proved to be invalid, because the gases used by Miller were stated to have been completely different from the real conditions of the earth. After the revelation of this fact, Miller too confessed that the atmosphere he used was unrealistic.
Another reason why the theory of evolution is hooey is because even science today hasnât been able to create even the simplest of cells by bringing together inanimate matter. The conditions that a cell requires to form are too great to be coincidences. The probability of an average protein made of 500 amino acids being formed coincidentally is 1 in 10950 and in math, a probability smaller than 1 over 1050 is deemed impossible. Â Also, the DNA molecule that stores genetic information has data which is written down would fill a giant library consisting of 900 volumes of encyclopaedia of 500 pages each.
Another interesting fact is that DNA can only multiply with the presence of proteins, however for information to be present in the protein; DNA too has to be present. So this is kind of like the situation of whether the egg came first or the hen. It is highly impossible that both of these complex cells arose coincidentally at the same time in the same place, and it is also impossible for one to exist without the other, which concludes the fact that life couldnât have originated by chemical means, and therefore had to be created by a higher Creator.
Additionally, another claim by Neo-Darwinists is that living organisms present at this time underwent mutations of sorts from their ancestorsâ therefore leading them to create a new species. Yet, scientific facts themselves state that mutations do not cause living beings to develop, on the contrary, they always cause harm to them. This proves that a âdestructive mechanismâ cannot by any chance be an âevolutionary mechanismâ therefore; a process called evolution could not have taken place.
An added evidence is that if a species went under some changes, then there shouldâve been billions of fossils of creatures who were in the stages of transformation; i.e. some a half reptile half/half bird creature? But archaeological finding have never come across such fossils which proves that all these different creatures suddenly emerged fully formed without any changes in between, which again proves that they would have HAD to have been created.
It is also claimed that human beings evolved from apes. This is one of the funniest claims Iâve come across, because I refuse to believe that my ancestors were monkeys.
Evolutionists have created a chain which goes as Australopithecus > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens implying that each one is the ancestor of the other. However, paleoanthropologists have revealed that Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus all lived at the same time in different parts of the world, which indicates the baselessness of their claim since there couldâve been no evolution process if all of them were present at the same time. Moreover, it has been found that Homo erectus have lived up until very recent times and no evolution has taken place among them.
These are only a few of the claims that I will refute in this post, but there are many such baseless claims which I hope to write about in future posts.
Sources:
The evolution misconception by Harun Yahya
http://people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/creation/fossilrecord1.html
elixirofmemories.wordpress.com 