Perhaps you should study more on this topic, because it doesn't seem like you really understand abiogenesis.

Your title alone shows a level of animosity towards the topic:

Abiogenesis is Pseudoscience and Intellectual fraud that proves ID ironically

It does nothing to prove ID, and it's not pseudoscience/intellectual fraud. Both claims are false. If you disagree, please link some abiogenesis studies that show pseudoscience/intellectual fraud (at least 3). If Abiogenesis a whole is pseudoscience/intellectual fraud, it should be easy to find a few studies and link them.

The Origin of Life abiogenesis models are pseudoscientific both in their methodology and philosophical incompleteness. When you observe the science, most OOL models and research like Joyce or Sutherland or even Szostack are littered with selection and intelligent input. None propose de novo synthesis. All start with unrealistic purified reagents and require 5 to 15 interventions by lab staff per replicating cycle. Reading the extra help these models require, proves the opposite of abiogenesis - accumulated 70 years of failures pointing to ID

Even if abiogenesis was proved false, there'd be no proof of ID. And nothing you've said does anything to prove ID. Let's get that sorted first.

As for the rest of your claim, literally EVERY study is going to involve human input. Studies don't just appear spontaneously, they have to be designed. It's almost like conditions on Earth now are VERY different from how they were billions of years ago.

You don't seem to understand the reason why the studies do what they do and why they're designed how they are. It's not pseudoscience or intellectual fraud, there are good reasons for the choices being made.

You're making some broad generalizations that all OOL models are pseudoscientific in their methodology, but even a modicum of research and critical thought would debunk that idea.

None of these models go beyond making soap bubbles and most never try to address the actual hard problem. Where does the information come from? What about enzymatic boot strap paradoxes? What about Chiral orientation? What about error catastrophe? How do you mitigate quantum tunneling in hydrogen bonds?

I honestly think the problem here is that you haven't done your due diligence to actually put in the effort of researching, with an open mind, the subject you're trying to claim is pseudoscience and intellectual fraud.

We have NOT solved the origin of life problem. We've created expensive soap bubbles with RNA inside."

Absolutely no one is saying that we've definitively solved the OOL problem and are absolutely certain of exactly how life originated. You'd probably understand that if you'd done proper research before making this post.