That depends on where you choose to draw the line between "non-life" and "life". Define your question more specifically and I'll be glad to answer.
The general answer is that "life" as we think of it includes many properties, but early "life" (or proto-life, or whatever you want to call it) wasn't that complicated. So while it seems baffling to think of "life" (*as we now know it*) arising *poof* from "non-life", instead the process was a much more gradual accumulation of properties, and there was no *poof* instant, nor any point where the preceding step was obviously "non-living" and the following step was obviously "alive" by our standards.
And how come all proteins are left handed, when the proteins we synthesize in vidrio are left and right handed?
They aren't all left-handed, just most of them. Numerous living things produce and incorporate right-handed amino acids. As for why, because things work out more neatly when working with building blocks that are mostly of the same handedness, so evolution favored processes of life which specialized in one "hand" (left, or right).
Your problem then is that this is not cellular evolution, but rather abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is on a much more speculative footing than the theory of evolution (not to say that there's no evidence favoring it). Once more for those who haven't been listening to these threads: Evolution is only concerned with what happens once a viable cell exists. It isn't concerned with how that cell came to be.