You're in luck. This is my area of expertise. I'm a cell biologist.

This is Virchow's cell doctrine. It is perfectly correct, in the context of the last 3.8 billion years of evolution, but from a modern biological perspective, the modern cell is most certainly not the most fundamental definition of biological life, in chemical terms. This article of mine should help articulate precisely what it means for a chemical system to be biological:

The Third Revolution

Once you are finished with that, and therefore have an appreciable understanding of biology in chemical terms, then it is crucial you read the following before proceeding:

Chemical Evolution

The point that should be hinted at from the above articles is that Virchow's cell doctrine is true but it does not preclude the process of chemical evolution, that is, the process by which cellular units which must obey the cell doctrine arose. It is like stating "daughter cells of all Eukaryotic cells inherit mitochondria during duplication". This is perfectly true, but it would be invalid to extend this logic and argue that Eukaryotic cells, complete with mitochondria to inherit, were always present, otherwise the next generation of Eukaryota could not inherit mitochondria, because mitochondria had to be introduced into cellular populations via the process of endosymbiosis, a major step in the evolution of cells. Prior to this time, the statement "all eukaryotic cells must inherit mitochondria" did not hold because there was no endosymbiosis. In other words, cellular evolution does not preclude the formation of original primitive replicator units which once formed, must obey the cell doctrine. As you can see from the two articles of mine I provided, the definition of biological can extend to chemical systems far more primitive then the ones that must obey the cell doctrine. As I detailed in the scenario of the earliest history of life on Earth which is best in line with the evidence we have from studying ribozymes for the last 27 years, a modern cell, which is a membrane-enclosed chemical system with a distinct physical boundary, which obeys the fundamental dogma of molecular biology (that is, information can only move from nucleotides to polypeptides, never the other way around), operates on a system where the replication of DNA and the division of the cell are both extensive processes which require the duplication and control by, polypeptides. But during the early history of life on Earth, chemical systems which employed DNA as the central replicative polymer and polypeptides as the main product encoded by the sequences they contained did not exist. What did exist were systems of ribozymes which were free to diffuse throughout various populations of ribozymes, in which a central process of this evolution was the formation of enclosed membrane-bound compartments that were topologically distinct from each other. That process is also detailed in the link above. During the earliest history of life on Earth, the replication of the ribozymes (as indicated in the article above) would have been independant. Ribozymes which were capable of catalyzing the formation of the phosphodiester bond that links nucleotide monomers together would have diffused through a pool of ribozymes. This is believed to be the highly primitive origin of cellular life. Only when the existence of compartments allowing the sequestering and confinement of ribozymes to certain regions would have allowed for the development of RNA-based systems of sufficient complexity we could coherently speak of a discrete membrane-enclosed chemical system, the contents of which could duplicate. In other words, once RNA-based systems reached sufficiently complexity allowed the system of phospholipid-based membranes, would we see the emergence of "cells". These very primitive precursors to modern cells, which employ DNA and polypeptides for functions that primitive cells would have used RNA for, would be the first chemical systems we could speak of to obey the cell doctrine. In effect, the existence of these cells would have established the cell doctrine, much like the first endosymbiotic events in the evolution of Eukaryota would have established the principle that daughter Eukaryotes must inherit mitochondria during cell division.

That is still an open question, but what I presented above, and in the link, is the scenario which is most in line with the evidence we have from studying ribozymes.

This is an absurd piece of reasoning which does not follow from the cell doctrine, which does not preclude the process of chemical evolution outlined above. Furthermore, it is a simplistic and false dichotomy, for nobody is claiming that the "spontaneous and totally random creation of a cell" is the process by which the earliest chemical systems which could have the definition of biological formed, as has been articulated in the second article linked.

LOLbump...

 I love it.

Yeah, right. After "So...yeah", who could stay for any more? 10 bucks dude is off somewhere applying ointment.

That was an awesome wall-of-text weapon of mass disillusion, DG. Shock and awe.

You didn't have to go through
all that trouble for me!