I've never heard of this "post count limit". Is that something new?
You say that interpretation of holy texts is fallible. Could there be mistakes in the texts themselves? Where the interpretation is clear, is there anything that could be wrong?
Clearly you think that the overwhelming scientific consensus about the history of the world is wrong, because it conflicts with parts of the holy texts whose interpretation seems clear. When and how did you determine that the scientific community is wrong and the old books are right? Do you agree with many Christian creationists that fossils and other evidence were planted by god to try to trick us or test our faith?
You seem to share with most Christian creationists a basic confusion about what science is and how it works. It is not true that abiogenesis "is a theory which directly stems from the presumption that there is no creator". There is no presumption, just basic intellectual hygiene: avoid adding pieces and parts to your theory unless there is evidence for them. Since there is no evidence for a "creator", there is no good reason to include one.
People used to believe that god pushed the stars and planets around in the sky. Now that we have a universal theory of gravitation, we can calculate their orbits and see their motions as resulting from a natural process. It would not be correct to say that the theory of gravitation "presumes" that there is no creator. There is simply no need to invoke one to explain the motions of the planets. We would make no progress in understanding the universe if we kept saying "god is doing it" rather than figuring out what is really happening. Same thing in biology.
"How can an omnipotent being create a rock, which is too heavy for him to lift"
Is not Allah supposed to be omnipotent? Or is it not omnipotence itself that you object to, but the particular form it takes in Christian theology? Can you expand on this?
Also, pointing out some things that bother you about Christianity doesn't explain why you decided to convert to Islam. Islam, like most other religions, makes many specific claims about the world and its history. Did you determine that these claims were true before converting? Or did you convert first, and now "know" that these claims are true because they are (now) part of your religion?
I ask because I am genuinely curious about the conversion process in those adults who do not otherwise seem to be completely befuddled. I can understand someone who is raised in a particular religion either struggling to overcome it, or not, but have never been able to understand how a rational adult makes the free choice of a specific religion (free in the sense of not being determined by powerful social pressures).
"You can't make a program without broken egos."