You said you were going to disprove Christianity. I just wanted to see you complete the job, and not just "pick the low hanging fruit" of six-day creation and original sin. Also no-one is talking about picking parts of the [insert religious text] to suit (although I admit this happens- no one is practicing the law of Deuteronomy!). What changes is not the parts that are practised, but the interpretation of the text as a whole. Scientific understanding has moved on from the Creation, and so have most Christians, understanding the Book of Genesis instead as laying the groundwork for the relationship between God and the individual in the Bible. The reasons for individual religious belief are clearly sociological and I don't want to speak for religious believers (as I am not one), but it's only realistic to accept that as human understanding of the scientific world advances and improves, then the nature of the humans within, and their understanding of their position in the world from a spiritual point of view is going to change. The Catholic Church, for example, no longer presses the case for geocentrism. Incidentally, I don't see religious institutions as a force for good, as they manipulate the ignorant and force their understanding of the world on others in a most illiberal manner.

Im going to follow the facts and form my theory instead of starting with a theory and forming facts to fit it.

I'm sorry if my tone to begin with was a bit confrontational, I felt compelled to post because clearly your understanding of Christian theology is very basic; you're a long way from disproving Christianity and there are better places to start (like on the balance of probability God simply doesn't exist). You say you are going to follow the facts and form a theory; you should therefore know the value of informing oneself before you pronounce on a subject like you just did on "disproving Christianity".