I don't claim to speak for dr_lew, but you seem interested, inquisitive, and honest enough... so I'll give it a shot.
Are you saying that you believe that if you mix up a bunch of molecules (which are not self-replicating metabolizing) you'll get a self-replicating and metabolizing living cell...? Show me!
There exist a number of models for abiogenesis. Harvard recently launched a new
Origin of Life program to continue and promote the field of research. One of the labs which will be leading this initiative is likely the
Szostak Lab, which has done lots of very nice research on protocells. They integrate with other labs in a nice
public, interactive front-end. Anyway, that's a nice slice of where you can get the current state-of-the-art on origins research. As I said, this research promotes a number of possible models for the origin of life which continue to be tested and refined. I wanted to introduce you to my favorite.
As you mentioned, any theory of the origin of life must include self-replication and metabolism. I think it's a little more subtle than that:
Self-replication: This isn't restricted to centriole-driven cytokinesis as you seem to imply in your later "It's very complicated" Demskiism post. Lots of things self-replicate. It's not very difficult to do. Anything that can grow and spread is effectively self-replicating, though we would not call it alive. Fire and crystals are good examples. Both grow and "reproduce" just like things that are alive, but we still don't call them alive. So, we need more.
Metabolism: This also isn't dependent on a certain form - like one that is dependent on the Kreb cycle, ATP-synthase, or any complex molecule. Any mechanism that is available to do work for the cell is a good candidate for the first "metabolism". The most common, and probably the simplest, driver of work is heat. From the sun, from geothermal vents, etc. Heat creates lots of interesting processes that could drive the first cell - pressure gradients and fluid flows, chemical gradients and osmotic pressures, organic chemicals and alternate chemistries, etc.
A good starting point for almost all theories of the origin of life has been the fatty acid
micell or liposome - a self organizing layer of molecules which form a cellwall-like barrier and can capture large molecules inside them (that's how soap works). Fatty acids are produced naturally and can grow, fuse, and divide.
Here's a good study which looks at these properties in the context of a protocell model. And
here's a page with videos and simple explanations.
But no one would call this life, we still need some sort of self-replicating molecule. There's a number of candidates... many types of nucleotides and this is where most of the current research is. We're looking for the best candidates to self-polymerize or autocatalyze. The best candidate is
simple RNA, which can catalyze its own template polymerization. Once polymers are formed on the inside of a micell (either be captured there or formed there) they become trapped, unlike the individual nucleotides. Template based polymerization can copy the strand without the use of proteins. If the "cell" is heat cycled (like in a geothermal vent, ocean current, etc) the polymers can separate and repeat the process. At this point, there's a competition for nucleotide bases. The favored protocells are the ones with polymers that have the right concentrations of nucleotides, replicate the fastest, explore polymer enzymatic activities, etc. We called this the "Bubble Wars" in my graduate classes.
I was delighted when I saw
this video made for the YouTube crevo debates which explains mostly the same thing. That user is very well versed and has some very good videos I recommend checking out. There's plenty of others in the related videos section too.
So, we have a model for the first self-replicating protocell built from simple and naturally occurring substances, driven by thermodynamic processes to compete for resources.
Hope that's some food for thought.