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.
My words in blue.
You cannot say No. And what I mean is the seed of life came in that way: embedded in the meteoritic rocks. In case such substances which are essential components of the living organisms came in this meteorite: why not then some microbes, fungus and microorganisms (encapsulated may be) also came in this way? In addition to seeds of plants and decayed animal and man bodies, and such amino acids and other substances discovered on this meteorite are the remnants of those organisms that lived in the past on the destroyed planets.
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.
You cannot say false for certain; and again these substances are essential components of the bodies of living organisms whether unicellular or multicellular beings.
Moreover, no one can assert that such rocks cannot be the remnants of some destroyed planets; and if any planet is broken up, what will the outcome other than parts and pieces and meteoritic rocks?
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.
Again you cannot say wrong for certain; on the contrary, the idea now is that such substances : some of them at least are of extra-terrestrial origin; and we say it is almost the remnants of decayed corpses and cells of living orgnisms issued into the essential components like amino acids.
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.
Here, you are obviously wrong.
And I did not say some of these substances are not of earthly origin, and no one say that life has not reproduced on Earth, but this will corrupt their Evolution theory of course.
