No disrespect, Scubie, but the website speaks in generalities and does not answer the very specific charge.
Let me cite the problem very specifically.
Genesis 1
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and EVERY WINGED FOWL after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
1:23 And the evening and the morning were THE FIFTH DAY.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
...
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were THE SIXTH DAY.
__________________________
To recap: God made all the birds - every winged fowl - on the fifth day. And God made man on the sixth day.
__________________________
Now let's look at Genesis 2
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden...and there he put the man whom he had formed.
2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree ...
2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden...
2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat...
2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and EVERY FOWL OF THE AIR; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
To recap: God made man before the plants sprouted (which doesn't mean before he made the plants - they could have been seeds).
And then God made Eden, and then put man in it.
And then God saw Adam was alone, that this wasn't good, so then he made the animals to be his companions, including EVERY BIRD.
Genesis 1: EVERY BIRD is made BEFORE man.
Genesis 2: EVERY BIRD is made AFTER man, and for the purpose of being man's companion.
This is not a question of greater detail, as the website suggests. That the plants haven't sprouted yet is a greater detail. That the animals, made on the same day as Adam in Genesis 1, are made for Adam is a detail. But Genesis 2 reverses the order of creation of the birds, specifically, and creates an impossible situation, where every bird was created before man, and every bird was created after man (and there was no death to make the every bird created before to die and be replaced by every bird to be created after).
This is simply a Bible contradiction.
How could this happen?
The answer, the Jews will tell you, is that there were at least two ancient traditional sources for Genesis, what they call the Priestly source, and the Yahistic source. The story lines in the two sources were slightly different. The author of Genesis, who actually took to the task of writing down the ancient lore, did not want to choose one sacred tradition over the other, so he wrote them both down and blended them. But some details could not be blended and made to correspond. The creation of the birds is one of them.
This is no big deal: God created the world. He created life. He created man. But Genesis doesn't tell us how He did it. In fact, it gives us a conflicting account of when He made the birds. It's not a little thing IF one is a strict literalist, because it's a conflict which forces on to choose. I have read before the websites that say what the one you posted said: but they don't answer the problem of the birds.
Some translators know the problem of the birds, and have tried to finesse it by adding a verb tense. The NIV does this, inserted a HAD into Genesis 2, so that God puts the birds he HAD made into the garden with Adam. This is tampering with the text. There is no Hebrew pluperfect. There NEEDS to be a pluperfect there in order to make the problem of the birds go away, but there ISN'T one, in any text, in any manuscript. It should make a reader nervous if his translator is so desperate to get rid of a tiny little textual problem that he actually adds words and changes verb tenses in the Bible. The NIV is not faithful to the scripture for Genesis 2:19. (You haven't raised this yet, but you will find it on a website and link it. Don't. The NIV move is not correct for the Hebrew OR the Greek. There is no "had", no pluperfect tense there.)
Now, what this means is that SOME PEOPLE have a problem, because they have insisted on the literalism of every word in all the text. If that were really true, what does one make of the Levitical and Deuteronomic Laws of divorce, which Jesus nullifies and says did not reflect what God wants for marriage.
Probably the most alarming case of a textual conflict is Jesus giving the sign of Noah, and saying that the Son of Man will be in the earth three days and three nights.
Jesus died on Friday afternoon. One day (stretching it). He was put in the tomb before sunset and the onset of the Sabbath. Night passed and Saturday morning came (one night). Saturday's sun rose and set (Day two). The night fell. Night two. Jesus rose before dawn on Sunday.
He was in the grave two days and two nights. Had he risen on Monday, he would have been in the grave three days and three nights. There's no finessing it. The text that says what Jesus said would happen does not descibe precisely what DID happen. It doesn't matter to ME, but it does matter to those who demand that every word be taken absolutely literally.
The mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed. Jesus was wrong about that, if he was speaking literally. If he was not speaking literally there, because he was making a point, why must God have been speaking literally in Genesis, when he was also making a point, and not a moral point.
Jesus said that the Old Testament was: Love your neighbor as yourself and love God above all. What does when the birds were created have to do with that?
There are other examples, and maybe we should cite them, but not yet.
There is a far larger point, and it has to do with authority and faith.
The website you cited was arguing from a certain perspective, and directed at a certain type of argument. I have answered these same arguments myself. The argument about textual conflicts and inaccuracies is generally asserted by non-Christians to ridicule the Bible. Their point is "Look! The Bible is in conflict here! Look, it errs there! Therefore, the whole religion is a pile of crap!"
But I have done nothing of the kind! What I have pointed out, gently but insistently, is that the Bible is not the bedrock on which faith can be built. The Bible is good, and contains the Word of God, but if faith is built on just the Bible, it is liable to be creaky, as creaky as the texts. There really are places where the text conflicts with itself (the birds; three days), never mind external reality (the mustard seed, the fact that plants were being eaten before the Fall, and therefore there was in fact death, of plants anyway, before The Fall). If Faith is built on the Holy Spirit, one sees these things, knows we are dealing with very ancient texts and very ancient ideas - some of them cultural and traditional. One knows what Jesus said about Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament -one knows GOD'S point in inspiring the thing, because Jesus tells us. And one is not alarmed by the inconsistencies and errors. This is a work of men. They were inspired by God, and the thing God inspired is related true, but as with the mustard seed, it is relayed to men, through the hands of men, and the prism of the understanding of men of that day. At one point, the Bible says the Hebrews were in Egypt 400 years. At another, 430+ years. A conflict! Perhaps. But the ancient Jews did not care (and modern Jews don't either). Neither do Catholics - though I hesitate now to be too positivist about Catholic beliefs since lest some Catholic layman with a differing view come out of his armchair and start screaming "Heresy!". 400 years, 438(?) years. Either way it's a long time. Good enough. That wasn't God's POINT. Jesus told us God's point.
The problem with taking the literalist view is that you have to end up avoiding, and eventually denying, the fruits of all other learning. Natural science advances? To the extent it contradicts Genesis, it must be in error, and evolution of any sort must not be taught. The world is a few thousand years old because Genesis says so, and Genesis is the Inspired Word of God, and therefore every word in it, on every subject, must be literally and exactingly true. Therefore the world cannot be very old, and evolution didn't happen. And dinosaur bones? Died in the flood, I guess. And Three Days and Three Nights? The trouble is that one ends up having to perform mental contortions (which are never completely believable to many people who feel they have to do them). The BIGGER trouble is that one must then get very, very aggressive with anybody like me who gently and patiently points out that on Jesus' own words about what God meant, we really don't have to do these contortions, we really don't have to oppose biological science, we really don't have to avert our eyes from dinosaur bones. It's ok. Jesus told us what the Old Testament meant. It doesn't matter that Jesus wasn't in the tomb for three days and three nights, and we don't have to resort to some sort of twisted counting of days and nights that does not respect Jewish or Roman custom or either Hebrew, Greek, Latin or English language. (Nobody in any of those languages or cultures would have ever said that, after midnight tonight, it is now FRIDAY night, a different night, even though the day changes. It is desperate and pathetic, and rings hollow, to count the Saturday night before Easter as two nights. There is actually a whole branch of Christianity devoted to the idea that Jesus was really crucified on THURSDAY, because that would make Sunday the day of the Resurrection and not conflict with the literal Bible words.) Jesus went into the tomb and came out after three days, more or less. That's what matters. Did the cock crow once or thrice? This is not a difference about which to build a theology. Different authors remembered things a little differently. So what? These minor variations do not matter a jot when speaking of the message of salvation...UNLESS one has become obsessed with literalism.
But why would one do that?
On what basis?
Jesus wasn't. He amended the Torah quite a bit. And he summarized the whole OT in two sentences.
It is only if one assigns EXCESSIVE authority to the Scriptures, as the FOUNDATION of faith, that these problems erupt.
Now, I am not going to criticize you for doing it.
I do not do it, and most Catholics do not do it.
This is one of the key reasons why reading of the Scripture alone, without the assistance of clergy, was frowned upon. People reading something sacred are very serious, and may become TOO literalist and legalistic about the words. Remember, the letter of the law kills, but the spirit gives life.
There are many ways to approach this book, this Bible. Reverentially, for the inspired Word of God, yes, we all agree on that. Where we disagree is on the interpretation of those words, and the hermeneutic whereby that can be done.