Ok, first, bear in mind that Abiogenesis is a completely separated theory and really less supported by fact than Evolution, so you can´t disprove Evolution by attacking Abiogenesis,
Abiogenesis so is closer to a hypothesis than a proper theory. Many of the predictions are still to be proven, but that is the way science works.
Basic and simplified Abiogenesis:
The forming of organic mater from simple chemicals under some conditions is far from random.
(Problem: were the early Earth conditions suitable?)
From there you end up getting very simple self-replicating RNA-like molecular structures.
(This is a difficult and important step, but experiments hint that it is possible)
Groups of self-replicating molecules end up beign more efficient than others and as they get more and more complicated they "need" a better and more complex reproduction mechanism so after many mutations you end up with a simple bacteria: a strand of DNA floating inside a membrane that reproduces itself by subdivision.
(I guess this will be really hard to get to happen on a lab, those things had millions of years to try every stupid combination they could bring about)
So, there you have your explanation, it has gaps, but think of what you risk placing God on them, as I said, he might be squeezed when facts come to support these ideas or a new and better theory accounts for these matters.
[Edited for horrible grammar]
