...where is your objection now?
My objection is that you're making conclusions beyond what the data justify. Here's what you've claimed, and why you're wrong:
1. Life came to our Earth embedded in the meteoritic rocks.
No. Certain chemical precursors of life may have come to earth that way, but they're not life.
2. It confirms the origin of life from the previous solar system.
False conclusion and an unjustifiable assumption. Again, these substances are not life, and there's no evidence there was a previous solar system here that blew up and re-formed into the present one.
3. But Murchison's meteorite confirms the extraterrestrial origin of life.
Wrong again. It confirms that some of the chemical precursors of life may have arrived in meteorites.
4. Murchison meteorite confirms these substances are not from Earth in origin.
No, if confirms that some of them exist extraterrestrially, but you can't conclude that none of them are of earthly origin, nor can you conclude that life would not have arisen on earth without these extraterrestrial chemicals, which is clearly what you're implying.