This is a common question. I think the experiment and its conclusions are often misunderstood.
Originally, the null hypothesis was that the ingredients for life could not have come about spontaneously, from inert, inorganic molecules. There was no evidence of strictly physical, non-biological processes being able to produce compounds that were necessary for the proteinaceous life as we know it. In other words, abiogenesis was therefore not supported by any line of positive evidence... until the Miller-Urey experiment. The experiment showed that the ingredients could arise through plausible, natural conditions prior to the existence of life! It bridges the gap between inert, inorganic, non-biological, and the rich soup of complex molecules that would - arguably - be necessary for anything like abiogenesis to even be a consideration based on empirical observation.
Of course the presence of amino acids is not evidence for the abiogenic origin of life. Life is not protein nor amino acid alone. But demonstrating that complex biological ingredient chemistry occurs spontaneously in large abundance - that sounds like a great take-off point for an abiogenic origin of life! That's really all the experiment achieved. In its historical context, it is a very impressive discovery, but it is certainly not a complete explanation, merely something that makes myriad biochemical explanations possible (and perhaps even plausible!). Perhaps you can now better appreciate why it excited and continues to excite biochemists working on trying to understand the chemical origins of life. The Miller-Urey experiment is foundational.
As for the transition from RNA to an RNA-protein origin of life, I quote briefly from another answer elsewhere here:
Regarding the transition from RNA-only to RNA-protein world, peptides
function as cofactors for some ribozymes. Amino acids and peptides are
known to have existed in the prebiotic environment and have been found
in space (glycine has been found in comets, along with other 70 amino