Do Non-Living Things Eventually Spawn Living Things?

  Thinking about the Big Bang Theory, and how it all started with non-living things, tonight, the part about evolution I do not understand, is that if there once was no life at all, not so much as any amoeba -- if there once was nothing but elements such as mercury and helium and such, then does that mean life evolved from non-life?
    Are you telling me that if we hang around and watch for a few billion years, life will spring out of -- I don't know, steel or magnesium or something? What brings it about, the right mixture of elements? The right temperatures? Or, if they just sit there long enough, they just eventually come to life?
   It seems either non-living things must spawn living things, or else the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are incompatible. You can believe in one, or you can believe in the other, but you can't believe in both. But, I'm guessing they do, indeed, believe the living can be born of the non-living. Or, maybe they just believe that somewhere in that little cluster that expoded to make the universe, there was a living organism of some sort. Surely, they have some explanation, and I'm just too new to the conversation to know what it is.

Kepler-444 and the Chances of Life Elsewhere in the Universe

   The biggest of bangs just had a little bang. Scientists say the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago. And, now news from a few days ago says we've found a planetary system revolving around a star called Kepler-444 that is 11.2 years old, a system with planets smaller, but not massively smaller than the earth.

   It's got the sky watchers buzzing. They're reasoning, I believe, that if planets this close in size to that of the earth existed that long ago, it increases the chances of life elsewhere in the universe. I haven't yet learned the logic, but it may be that the weight or size of the planet has something to do with how far the planet is from its sun, and that determines how hot the climate is and whether life can be nurtured.

   Now, all this presupposes that life here on earth -- life that requires the temperatures we have -- is the only life possible. No such thing as a creature evolving that could live at 1,000 degrees below zero and no chance of it living at 1,000 above. 

   It also seems the theorists do not believe there are element other than those here on earth: helium, mercury, etc. I wonder if there is a connection there. I wonder if that means that since the elements on earth are the only ones, then those elements dictate that life can only survive in the range of temperatures found here on earth.

   One of the sub-theories of evolution, is that life adapts to its environment. I guess it cannot adapt to or be spawned in real extreme temperatures.

Scientists Place Prehistory as Ending at About 4000 B.C. -- Interesting

   All good science will tell you man descended from the same ancestor as did the ape. And, I'm here to tell you, that if he did, a lot of good evidence is that it happened at about, oh, 4000 B.C.
   Significant, isn't it, inasmuch as this puts when primitive man ceased and modern man began right about the time of Adam and Eve.
   Ever notice how for those millions of years in this globe's existence, the human form is not considered to have had much intelligence? A cave man, is all he was, with a brain allowing him to do little beyond the making of a fire.
   And, ever notice how the human type became markedly more intelligent after, oh, about 4000 B.C.? Or is that my misconception, for I confess that's when I would place the date.
   And, here's another did-you-ever-notice: Did you ever notice how the evolution of man -- that stuff Charles Darwin has us believing in -- seems to have come pretty much to a halt along about, oh, 4000 B.C.? Man remains with the same body characteristics as he did 6,000 years ago. He hasn't changed. You might argue that evolution takes longer than that. Still, the fact remains, the man of 4000 B.C. is the same as the man of 2000 A.D.
  Ever study the different ages of technology? Well, the first was the Neolithic Revolution. It was the first technological revolution in all the millions of years this world has supposedly been here. Ever notice just when it was that this Neolithic Revolution took place? It is said it was 8,000 to 12,000 B.C. That is just in front of the day of Adam and Eve. Is the time frame off some, and in reality it took place beginning with 4,000 B.C.? Even if it is not, it remains significant that of all the millions of years scientists say were involved in evolution, the Neolithic Revolution didn't take place until just shortly before Adam and Eve are said to have been here.
   In a world of evolution, you don't arrive at being modern man all of a sudden, so if the Neolithic Revolution took place just in front of Adam and Eve, it remains significant.
   With the Neolithic Revolution, man swung from being a hunter-gatherer to being a farmer. Agriculture was introduced. But, it was more than that. Man become more sedentary and more prone to live in larger communities. Writing and systems of knowledge were introduced. Art, architecture and centralized administrations were started.
   So, when was the first full-blown manifestation of all the features of the Neolithic Revolution? That would be the Middle Eastern Sumerian cities. And the date for them? Hmm, 5,500 years ago.
   All this lends credence to the theory that if mankind did descend from beasts, the transition to modern man came at the time of Adam and Eve.
   I'm not done. Ever open up your the encyclopedia to find out when recorded history began? It was about 4000 B.C. That means of all the written records that have ever been found, there are no written records of what was going on before about 4000 B.C. Writing was invented about 4000 B.C.
   We have a term, that scientists and historians use: "prehistory." Prehistory is the period before recorded history. It is interesting that prehistory ended about 4000 B.C.

(Edited Jan. 29, 2015)

Rather than answer my questions about evolution tonight, those I tried to reason with on Facebook called me names, assasinated my character, and derided my religion.

Further Exporations into Yesterday's Evolution Question

   Ahh, yes, there is some answer to the question I laid out yesterday. Man lost his hairy covering because he came out of Africa, where it was so warm, no covering was needed. That's an answer, but I'm not sure it does the trick. For, at some stage, man spread to other parts of the earth, colder places. Why is it that at least some of those new climes did not prompt him to adapt again, regrow the hair? For these places were cold, and if adaptation was to be had, this is what was needed.
   Was it that he had already started wearing clothes? And took them with him to the new climates. What got him started wearing the clothes, then? If he lost his covering because he didn't need it, why would he start wearing clothes while still in an environment that didn't require it? Did he become concerned about his morals, and not want to be naked? Perhaps that might work as an answer. (If so, what an irony, for religion would be causing evolution. Such a thought.) Or, did he assume the clothes when he started moving to the new, colder locations? When I go outside on a cold winter day today, even dressed as warm as I can, I still get cold. I do doubt that back then, the primate was dressing warm enough that adapting to the environment would not have meant getting a hairy covering -- or a covering of some kind.