PDA

View Full Version : What's your opinion on abortions?



Baldwin
10-12-2009, 09:24 AM
What's your opinion on abortions?

ad8
10-12-2009, 09:28 AM
http://www.offspring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1769

wheelchairman
10-12-2009, 10:01 AM
I'm against abortions because I believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman.

jacknife737
10-12-2009, 01:55 PM
Needs salt, ect, ect.

BKDH_1984
10-12-2009, 05:46 PM
I'm against abortions because I believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman.

I cannot disagree with you...so I agree 100%.

coke_a_holic
10-13-2009, 02:10 AM
I cannot disagree with you...so I agree 100%.

This. This this this this this.

Free?
10-13-2009, 04:05 AM
This. This this this this this.

I second that. bwaahahahahahahahaa!!

brothadave79
10-13-2009, 11:03 AM
My girlfriend said that if she got pregnant, she wouldn't hesitate to get an abortion.


I've stopped buying condoms.

KHWHD
10-13-2009, 11:11 AM
My girlfriend said that if she got pregnant, she wouldn't hesitate to get an abortion.

I've stopped buying condoms.

Dave - am I understanding this right? What you're saying is that you want her to get an abortion? You said you've stopped buying condoms, so obviously if she isn't on the pill and you knock her up she'll get preggy.

wheelchairman
10-13-2009, 11:18 AM
No, he stopped buying condoms because she gave the impression that she doesn't care, so why should he?

It's a dumb post though because its clearly just a lightly-veiled attempt at bragging.

brothadave79
10-13-2009, 11:22 AM
No, he stopped buying condoms because she gave the impression that she doesn't care, so why should he?

It's a dumb post though because its clearly just a lightly-veiled attempt at bragging.


Actually it was being facetious, because I'm actually not THAT big of a dickhead.

Sara MZK
11-03-2009, 05:40 AM
I totally believe in it being the woman's choice. Methinks if it was blokes who had to carry a child for 9 months, then suffer the agony of childbirth, most of the ones in this thread would change their minds very quickly! I totally believe in abortion for two reasons. One, if precautions were taken, and the woman still got pregnant but didn't want kids, then the woman should not have to suffer because of a freak accident. And secondly, even if precautions weren't taken, if the child would not be wanted, then an abortion would be the best decision all round. And I shouldnt have to mention that in cases such as rape, it would be inhuman to force a woman who became pregnant through such means to carry the pregnancy if she did not wish to. I am definitely an advocate for abortion. There's already too many unwanted, neglected children in the world, without bringing any more into it.

Alison
11-05-2009, 02:48 PM
I agree with Sara.

If someone wants an abortion, should they really be left to go on to have a child that is basically unwanted?...not very fair for the child or the mother. I know there's that whole "oh but the mother will grow to love the child", but that's not always the case. And imagine if and when the child finds out they were gonna be sucked out?
It's not fair to shove all this blame on women "they should have used a condom, she should have been on the pill". Because, for one, people who are on contraception can get pregnant, and two, contraception is expensive, and it is quite hard to find a place who gives it for free...and when they do, it's usually only for young people or students.
What if a woman is raped, or doesn't have the money to care for a child?
When abortion is illegal, it increases the amount of women who stick hangers up their gashes. Extremely dangerous stuff!

Also....if the child can't feel pain, if it has no consciousness, it's basically a vegetable, what's the big deal? Ok...it could one day be alive...but...it's not painful for it to die, and it will never know! I mean, we have no problem killing alive, consious, painfeeling animals, but when it comes to these blobs that cant feel anything yet, there's a big hoohaa.

Sara MZK
11-05-2009, 03:58 PM
Yep Alison, you're 100% right. Could have done without hearing about hangers up gashes though, that made me wince!

I do have much more problem with killing conscious, pain-feeling animals, than a feotal blob that can't feel anything yet. I cant understand why so many people have no problem with the former, but so much with the latter. Probably some "human life is sacred" nonsense....

wheelchairman
11-05-2009, 10:33 PM
So you guys have no problem with killing eh? Gross.

I suppose you think Adam and Steve should get married too?

Sara MZK
11-05-2009, 10:38 PM
So you guys have no problem with killing eh? Gross.

I suppose you think Adam and Steve should get married too?

Oh please! :rolleyes:

If you're asking if I support gay marriage, sure I do. Why shouldn't they be allowed to get married? Are you some religious whack-job, or just a bigot?

wheelchairman
11-05-2009, 10:41 PM
Because it's Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!

Sara MZK
11-05-2009, 10:44 PM
Because it's Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!

Okay, that's my question answered...thank you, bye! :p

wheelchairman
11-05-2009, 10:53 PM
Degenerate!

Sara MZK
11-05-2009, 11:04 PM
Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment. :p

jacknife737
11-05-2009, 11:05 PM
Because it's Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!

It ain't natural goddamnit.

Sara MZK
11-05-2009, 11:09 PM
It ain't natural goddamnit.

Says who?

And what about staying on topic? :rolleyes:

wheelchairman
11-05-2009, 11:33 PM
Says God, you got a higher authority?

Sara MZK
11-05-2009, 11:37 PM
Says God, you got a higher authority?

Oh really? Did god tell you that himself? Im guessing not, in which case you can't say he said that. Well you can, but not with any authority. There is no proof that god even exists, and even if he does, that he said that. You have no proof of anything, therefore, I can just dismiss what you're saying as psychobabble.

wheelchairman
11-05-2009, 11:47 PM
THE BIBLE, hello!!!! It's the word of God!

Sara MZK
11-05-2009, 11:50 PM
THE BIBLE, hello!!!! It's the word of God!

Yeah, and Bugs Bunny is the president of the USA, dagnammit! :p

Anyways, you bible bashers are all the same...pick n' mix the bible. Say certain things in the bible are gospel, but conveniantly ignore the parts that condemn your own behaviour. If god does exist and the bible is indeed his word, then most "christians" have got a one way ticket to hell!

wheelchairman
11-05-2009, 11:57 PM
How am I the bible-basher here? You mean bible-thumper right? The gospels (chapters written by those who witnessed Jesus, 4 of his disciples) teach that Jesus died for our sins, and that our God is a forgiving one. Is your God a mean one like in the old testament? Perhaps you are Jewish?

Funny how you accuse me of intolerance and bigotry but you seem to have nothing but contempt for those of faith.

Sara MZK
11-06-2009, 12:03 AM
How am I the bible-basher here? You mean bible-thumper right? The gospels (chapters written by those who witnessed Jesus, 4 of his disciples) teach that Jesus died for our sins, and that our God is a forgiving one. Is your God a mean one like in the old testament? Perhaps you are Jewish?

Funny how you accuse me of intolerance and bigotry but you seem to have nothing but contempt for those of faith.

Come on now, you can't dismiss the old testament, and then say that "god" says "Adam and Steve" is unnatural. Jesus himself never ONCE said anything negative about homosexuals. So, if you're basing your prejudice of gay people on the teachings of Christ, then you are nothing but a blasphemer, seeing as he himself never condemned homosexuality. I do accuse you of intolerance and bigotry, and of using religion as a shield to hide behind, so you are somehow "exempt" from those accusations. However. if you are basing the word of god on the teachings of christ, then you cannot use your religion, or god as an excuse to say that gay people are "unnatrual". Seeing as the only part of the bible which says such a thing is in the old testament. By putting words in Jesus' mouth, and saying he said things which he never did to justify your own prejudice, then you are taking his name in vain. Is that not supposed to be a grave sin in your religion?

wheelchairman
11-06-2009, 12:07 AM
If you really knew as much about Jesus (NOT THE USER!!) as you pretend to, you would know that he upholds and does not refute God and His prophets, but upholds them.

Homosexuality is a sin, and you're more of a bigot than I am!!

Sara MZK
11-06-2009, 12:11 AM
If you really knew as much about Jesus (NOT THE USER!!) as you pretend to, you would know that he upholds and does not refute God and His prophets, but upholds them.

Homosexuality is a sin, and you're more of a bigot than I am!!

In that case, why do you refute the old testament? Because that is only part of the bible that says homosexuality is a sin. And if you don't refute the old testament, then you are almost certainly a total hypocrite, just like most "Christians". You either believe in the WHOLE bible, or none of it. Picking and choosing the parts of the bible that fit in with your own views, and dismissing those that don't, is just pure hypocrisy.

I'm a bigot, why? Because I'm calling you out on your prejudices?

wheelchairman
11-06-2009, 12:59 AM
Why would I refute the old testament? How is that hypocritical? Jesus upholds the old testament, thus he upholds that homosexuality is a sin. Hypocrisy is crying intolerance against homosexuals while holding contempt for those who are religious. Of course you don't think so because you like to pick and choose your own "facts" to fit in with your own world view.

Besides Romans 1.31-32 (a new testament verse) says:

1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: (1:31-32)

1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death."
Essentially.

And your bigotry:

Are you some religious whack-job

You have no proof of anything, therefore, I can just dismiss what you're saying as psychobabble.
Especially since you're talking about religion, and I'm the only one to offer proof of anything so far...


you bible bashers are all the same

then most "christians" have got a one way ticket to hell!
(Because you must know Christianity better than most Christians)

you are nothing but a blasphemer

and saying he said things which he never did to justify your own prejudice, then you are taking his name in vain. Is that not supposed to be a grave sin in your religion?
And I'm just quoting that last one because...well God you're dumb.

you are almost certainly a total hypocrite, just like most "Christians"

Btw, putting things in quotations doesn't make it less bigotted.

God I hate most "faggots." See.

Sara MZK
11-06-2009, 01:53 AM
Why would I refute the old testament? How is that hypocritical? Jesus upholds the old testament, thus he upholds that homosexuality is a sin. Hypocrisy is crying intolerance against homosexuals while holding contempt for those who are religious. Of course you don't think so because you like to pick and choose your own "facts" to fit in with your own world view.

So, now you're saying you do uphold the old testament? Okay then, fair enough. We'll see who the hypocrite is now...The ONLY passage of the bible which specifically condemns homosexuality, is this one:

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

Now, just look at some of the other passages in the SAME chapter of the bible:

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

Geez, think of all the kids who are disrespectful of their parents, regardless of if they deserve it or not, who would be condemned to hell if this passage is true!

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

Yep, deporting people who have sex during the menstrual cycle is really something insisted on by the christian faiths!

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

This is basically endorsing racism, and slavery. Do you endorse those things? Im guessing not, and if not, why not? After all, this is where you're basing your prejudice of homosexuals on!

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

Why aren't "bible believing" fundamentalists up in arms over men who shave their beards, and/or cut the sides of their hair?

"...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)

This is saying eating pork is prohibited. So where are the christians picketing cafe's and restaurants that serve it?

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

So, you believe farmers who plant their fields with more than one kind of seed, and people who wear clothing made out of more than one kind of material (including yourself, I presume!) are committing sin?! And again, if not, why not?

And finally, we have this classic:

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)

So, anyone who eats shellfish is an abomination, according to the VERY SAME book that says men lying with men is an abomination!

If the ONLY one of these rules you see as being correct, is that homosexuality is an abomination, then you are a hypocrite, and you do pick and choose parts of the bible to suit yourself, and your own views.


Besides Romans 1.31-32 (a new testament verse) says:

Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death."

Essentially.

You really enjoy giving yourself rope to hang yourself with don't you? There was no word for "homosexual" in biblical hebrew and greek. In fact, the word "homosexual" as meaning someone attracted to the same sex has only been in usage for about 100 years. Why did you use the word "homosexual", when "Astorgous" is the actual biblical word which translates to "without natural affection"? Which literally means: "Lacking the tendency to express love and affection for one's own family or kin; lacking natural affection for close relatives."

That passage has been misinterpreted in modern translations of the bible, and used maliciously to persecute homosexuals, when the original passage (in its original form) in no way condemns homosexuals. As you can see, the above passage when translated LITERALLY from the original biblical text, doesn't even mention homosexuality, or even sex! Astorgous doesn't translate to "homosexuality", it translates to "without natural affection". There is NOTHING in the new testament in it's original hebrew form that when LITERALLY translated into modern English, condemns homosexuality. If you think you can prove me wrong on that, you're willing to try, but I bet you won't!


And your bigotry:

Especially since you're talking about religion, and I'm the only one to offer proof of anything so far...

Seeing as you cannot even prove the bible is the "word of god", I would say you have proved nothing whatsoever.


(Because you must know Christianity better than most Christians)

Seeing as a lot of so called "christians" are hypocrites, then I would say that I do. I would not attack something I knew nothing about. ;) Just because you label yourself "christian" doesn't mean that you know more about christianity than me, nor does it mean you are actually a christian. I can call myself "Keira Knightly", Doesn't make me her, does it?


And I'm just quoting that last one because...well God you're dumb.

Until you can prove me wrong on that, you are the one who is dumb.


Btw, putting things in quotations doesn't make it less bigotted.

God I hate most "faggots." See.

What? I use quotes when I feel they are needed, not for any other reason. The key point is here, until you can prove you are not bigoted, then I have every right to accuse you of being so. I am not a bigot purely for calling you out on your prejudice.

I think this should be moved to another thread, as it's gone completely off-topic...

wheelchairman
11-06-2009, 02:38 AM
Seeing as your clearly wrong about the homosexuality passage, I see no need to read or even acknowledge the rest of the stuff you wrote.


You really enjoy giving yourself rope to hang yourself with don't you? There was no word for "homosexual" in biblical hebrew and greek.
I thought it should go without saying that the part that was not in the quote, and that was in italics was not taken from the bible, but was my interpretation. Being dumb is one thing, but I thought it was fairly clear when I put the quote in the quotation form, and my commentary outside. Obviously my entire post is not a quote of Jesus, or did you think it was?

Then you talk of how the passage was misinterpreted without any sources whatsoever, if you're going to act like you have a higher intellectual source, you're going to have to post it, seeing as I don't think you are a higher intellectual source yourself.


Seeing as you cannot even prove the bible is the "word of god", I would say you have proved nothing whatsoever.
Seeing as its written by various prophets, and their followers, prophets speaking the word of God and all, this seems to be a pretty moot point.


Seeing as a lot of so called "christians" are hypocrites, then I would say that I do. I would not attack something I knew nothing about. Just because you label yourself "christian" doesn't mean that you know more about christianity than me, nor does it mean you are actually a christian. I can call myself "Keira Knightly", Doesn't make me her, does it?
And you don't ever address your prejudice against people of faith, but complain when others face prejudice, and somehow I'm the hypocrit.


Until you can prove me wrong on that, you are the one who is dumb.
You're dumb because I already addressed it, and you chose to ignore that. Now you're double-dumb because you're twice as dumb as before.


What? I use quotes when I feel they are needed, not for any other reason. The key point is here, until you can prove you are not bigoted, then I have every right to accuse you of being so. I am not a bigot purely for calling you out on your prejudice.
I have never said I'm not a bigot, I'm saying you're clearly a hypocrite for your contempt for religious people. Of which I quoted various times and you've ignored.

I mean "hypocrite."

Sara MZK
11-06-2009, 03:03 AM
Seeing as your clearly wrong about the homosexuality passage, I see no need to read or even acknowledge the rest of the stuff you wrote.

I thought it should go without saying that the part that was not in the quote, and that was in italics was not taken from the bible, but was my interpretation. Being dumb is one thing, but I thought it was fairly clear when I put the quote in the quotation form, and my commentary outside. Obviously my entire post is not a quote of Jesus, or did you think it was?

Then you talk of how the passage was misinterpreted without any sources whatsoever, if you're going to act like you have a higher intellectual source, you're going to have to post it, seeing as I don't think you are a higher intellectual source yourself.

I'm not wrong about it. The original biblical word that translates to "without natural affection", is "astorgous". Which as Ive already pointed out, has nothing to do with homosexuality. The term "without natural affection" has been misinterpreted to mean homosexuality, when in actual fact, it does not. In fact, it's a term to do with family relations, or family ties. Exactly, its YOUR interpretation of the text. And why? Because it fits in with your views on gay people. But, seeing as the literal translation of the original text in that passage, NEVER specifically mentions homosexuality, then it is purely down to assumption, and individual interpretation that it does so. I knew that passage wasn't a quote of Jesus...you really are going to have to stop playing me for a fool. You have admitted your view of that passage is your own interpretation, I choose not to share that view, as homosexuality is never actually mentioned in the passage.



Seeing as its written by various prophets, and their followers, prophets speaking the word of God and all, this seems to be a pretty moot point.

That is not proof. Just because you believe that to be the case (which is your right) it's no proof of god, or that the bible is "his word".


And you don't ever address your prejudice against people of faith, but complain when others face prejudice, and somehow I'm the hypocrite.

Geez...I have no prejudice against people of faith. For the record, I am agnostic. But I do have friends who are christians. But, when someone is a bigot, and uses religion as a shield to hide behind, to justify those views, then I will call them out on it if I think I have enough ammunition to do so. In your case, I definitely do. I appreciate people's right to believe in whatever they want to believe in. As long as they don't try and ram it down other's throats. You attacked me and Alison first, remember? If you challenge others' views, then expect your own to be challenged. Religion is fine, but when it's used to oppress people, that's when it upsets me.




You're dumb because I already addressed it, and you chose to ignore that. Now you're double-dumb because you're twice as dumb as before.

I have never said I'm not a bigot, I'm saying you're clearly a hypocrite for your contempt for religious people. Of which I quoted various times and you've ignored.

I mean "hypocrite."

You didn't address it at all, at least not in an adequate way. I am not a hypocrite, because I have NO contempt for religious people. Certain religous people, yes. But that is contempt for them, and their individual views, NOT becuase they are religious. I have friends who are religious, and I've never spoke to them the way I spoke to you, because you provoked that reaction from me. "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself". I think you'd do well to heed that particular biblical quote.

Oh yes, you really are the comedian aren't you?! If you cant take it, dont dish it out. ;)

wheelchairman
11-06-2009, 04:14 AM
If that was your problem with the excerpt then you should have phrased it so. I understand what you wrote to mean something completely different. Now forgive me if I don't take your word on the original aramaic/hebrew/latin interpretations. Since I speak none of the three I will simply argue on the English version, and I would recommend you do the same, for your own good.

As for your prejudice, you said "most 'Christians'" so many times it was ridiculous. Largely due to the striking issue of "wtf do you know about most Christians?"

Sara MZK
11-06-2009, 04:37 AM
If that was your problem with the excerpt then you should have phrased it so. I understand what you wrote to mean something completely different. Now forgive me if I don't take your word on the original aramaic/hebrew/latin interpretations. Since I speak none of the three I will simply argue on the English version, and I would recommend you do the same, for your own good.

As for your prejudice, you said "most 'Christians'" so many times it was ridiculous. Largely due to the striking issue of "wtf do you know about most Christians?"

I did phrase it so. It was you who assumed I took what you said as quoted direct from the bible, or christ. That was your mistake, not mine. Seeing as I knew the actual quote from the bible you were meaning, I knew that what you posted was your interpretation of it, rather than it being actually quoted word for word from the bible. You say that you will argue the English version...are you even aware that NO bible before the standard revised version in 1946 even used the word "homosexual" in it's translation? The English word "homosexual" is a word taken from the greek term "homo" (which means "the same") and from the latin "sexualis" (which means "sex") It is a modern word, and has only been printed in recent bibles. The original latin/hebrew etc. new testament texts never specifically mention homosexuality. The new testament passages that "condemn" homosexuality, are either mis-translated, or misinterpreted. (Like the one you posted earlier) I myself, do not know those languages, but I have read thesis from people who do, (some who actually are christians, and are pastors, and members of the church) and who have dissected the modern translations of biblical texts.

"most christians" who share your views on homosexuality, and giving religion as the reasons for your views do fit into that category, so it's hardly prejudice. It is generally speaking, I know, and I could have worded it better, but I stick by the statement, at least for those certain type of christians.

Llamas
11-06-2009, 06:40 AM
wtf...? where did wcm the troll come from?

Omni
11-06-2009, 07:55 AM
Topic summary:

- wheelchairman is one of the best trolls ever.
- Sara is a fucking dumbass.

Sara MZK
11-06-2009, 08:01 AM
Topic summary:

- wheelchairman is one of the best trolls ever.
- Sara is a fucking dumbass.

For not spotting a troll, even though he's "one of the best ever"? If I should have spotted that, he can't be that good, can he? Though I did suspect it :p

Llamas
11-06-2009, 08:03 AM
For not spotting a troll, even though he's "one of the best ever"? If I should have spotted that, he can't be that good, can he? Though I did suspect it :p

I don't think he meant that you're a dumbass for not spotting the troll...

Sara MZK
11-06-2009, 08:07 AM
I don't think he meant that you're a dumbass for not spotting the troll...

In that case, he just disagrees with my views, which he's entitled to do. But he's being a bit stuck up calling me a "fucking dumbass" because of that. If he wants to call me a dumbass, and not give any reason for doing so, then that's just being a total douche. Is he that polite to everyone he disagrees with? :p

Llamas
11-06-2009, 08:10 AM
I'm not sure. I thought your argument was pretty funny, but I don't necessarily think it makes you a dumbass. However, I doubt he was fully serious, anyway.

Sara MZK
11-06-2009, 08:13 AM
I'm not sure. I thought your argument was pretty funny, but I don't necessarily think it makes you a dumbass. However, I doubt he was fully serious, anyway.

There's nothing in my arguement that I can't back up, but if people think its funny, or that Im dumb, or whatever, then I guess I can't change that. lol

I think the only way in which I was dumb was allowing the conversation to go so completely off-topic as it did. Wcm probably laid a trap which I fell right into....Im too naive for my own good. :p

SweetTatyana
11-06-2009, 11:08 AM
holy bible talk!!
I'm going to start arguing with people using quotes from the lord of the rings series as proof and truisms.

Sara MZK
11-06-2009, 12:11 PM
holy bible talk!!
I'm going to start arguing with people using quotes from the lord of the rings series as proof and truisms.

LOL

No comment! ;)

Kennytar
11-06-2009, 12:54 PM
holy bible talk!!
I'm going to start arguing with people using quotes from the lord of the rings series as proof and truisms.

That would be more belivieble!

Anyway, Im all for abortion. I have never made one myself and hopefully never have to. Theres too many reasons for a woman to choose abortion and it's kinda dumb to argue about those being important or reasonable. Noone else can't make this kind of decision for you.
I feel bad only because so many women who could actually rase child in a healthy invorenment choose abortion and those who shouldnt have (anymore) children, give birth...

[[Meli.x]]
12-02-2009, 03:21 PM
woah.. has no one else picked up on the fact that WCM refered to the old and new testaments gods as being different?


teach that Jesus died for our sins, and that our God is a forgiving one. Is your God a mean one like in the old testament?

Its the same god, how can he be mean in the old testament and forgiving in the new?
Thr bible is filled with contradictions, "An eye for an eye, A tooth for a tooth, a life for a life." opposed to "thou shalt not kill"


Order of creation
Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

Taken from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#snakes

Theres your proof.