[narby]

fish and fowl were created first, then the beasts of the field, then man.

Exactly the same sequence as evolution says they were created.

Just as the separation of the days and nights come before that part.

If you read Genesis with a scientific eye, it actually has a significant correlation with science. It's hard to imagine how the ancients who recorded Genesis could come that close, unless it came from divine inspiration.

But, like all inspiration, it gets transmitted through the hand and language of man, and thereby the apparent conflicts are generated.

My point is that there are no contradictions.

If you can read the different Gospels, and reconcile the differences between them, then you can study evolution, and reconcile the difference between it and Genesis.

[Maria S]

"...then you can study evolution, and reconcile the difference between it and Genesis."

Maybe you can study and reconcile...I can't. It's just foolishness to believe that God 'created' something that crawled out of the ocean, then God kept on 'creating' until it grew wings, then He evolved it into a (what's next on the evolution ladder?)whatever. If I'm going to believe a literal interpretation of the Bible, I have to believe that there's SOMETHING that created me (in His image) and that SOMETHING is self-evident in every living thing. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on how things got started, I guess.