"They" don't have a laboratory that will house an experiment that will take millions of years of observation as they watch amino acids and polypeptides evolve into replicating proteins. "Your" explanation is the 'god of the gaps' one, which argues from ignorance that, since the answer is unknown, it must be [insert favorite god(s)]. Indeed, the argument that creationists have with abiogenesis is nothing more than a straw man, since their real problem is evolution itself. Those that are deluded by religious doctrines that say life was created by [insert favorite go(s)] and not through gradual changes overtime, can't successfully argue against evolution since it is sound and valid. Therefore, they pick the unknown to attack, in this case abiogenesis, since there is not sufficient data to provide a complete naturalistic explanation. There is, however, sufficient data to provide viable hypotheses on how abiogenesis works and how it might have worked. Which is the reason I moved the thread to the appropriate forum where there are those with expertise in the field who, should they so choose, could educate others on the subject.