Human beings cannot understand abstract, invisible realities without first learning visible, concrete references.
Mebbe so. I'm rather fond of analogies myself.
Electricity is a good example. Spiritual matters are likewise not amenable to direct mental comprehension.
The difference is that electricity is real. It can be demonstrated reliably, which suggests that we have some understanding of it. "Spiritual matters" can not be demonstrated reliably. One religion thinks it's AC, another thinks it's DC and another thinks it's static.
This is the crux of the reason why the mind alone is incapable of understanding the Bible: some of the accounts are literal, and some are allegorical. Without revelation, you confuse the two and fall into systematized error.
Revelation is the ultimate source of systematized error - different revelations for different folks.
Christ will return and, by all indications, sooner not later.
Again, the characteristics of life have to be observed indirectly.
You're making an incorrect distinction between direct and indirect observation. All observations are inherently indirect. Light is reflected from objects into the eye where it causes chemical changes which cause electrical changes which are interpreted in the brain with reference to other electrical changes that have been stored.
What difference does it make if the light is reflected from a physical object or from a line drawn by a machine that is "looking" at the physical object?
Did you need to use a machine to taste your last meal?
I needed glasses to see it. I needed utensils to eat it. I needed electricity to cook it. The only meal that doesn't require indirect action is the one you strangle manually and eat raw.
Ultimately, everything we do indirectly is based on things that we used to do directly. Why make a distinction between what we can do with our senses and what we can do with the machinery we create with our senses?
You claimed to be taking up the challenge, but you actually did not bother to do anything but assert.
The only challenge a bare assertion needs is another assertion.
But it also contained a challenge to disprove his statement.
Sure, he wanted us to disprove the statement to his satisfaction. I don't give a flying @#$% about that. I'm just pointing out to any sensible person reading this thread that his challenge is completely empty.
My specific point was that a belief in the validity of evolution is not in any way a hindrance to someone receiving Christ as their Savior: by the Father embodied in the Son becoming the life-giving Spirit to enter into and become mingled with their human spirit.
The problem with your point is that evolution is a hindrance to somebody accepting Christ as their Saviour if they believe it's a hindrance. Their belief in the hindrance doesn't have to be any more rational than their belief in Christ, so you can't rationalize it away.