my childhood

It was a strange one, my childhood, I don't remember much, but what I do is weird, I remember being a jerk to everyone, like I remember punching people, a lot, I think... I dont really know.  for all I know I could have been mutated and grown in a lab, like currently thats my going thorey meaning thats what i honestly think happened. sometimes.

Image courtesy of TvTropes

I have re and re and reinvented  my theory many, many, many times, I have perfected it and I have re and re and re perfected it.  Is twenty five percent plausible to grow someone in a lab, like, my mother, she never had a life, just fake memories, I have no proof she actually had a life, I have to proof of anything, I mean technically every other human could be animated, and I could be an ultimatley deep test of crazy heroness, I have never seen a human being born, I have no proof!  I am ment, or I was hatched for some specific reason.  My mother could not really be my mother, I dont know because I cant remember, I cant remember because I WAS HATCHD!!!! ( I know i wsnt Im jokin here).    I could also be wrong.  Honestly we could be hatched, especially if we don't even know how we came to/became to be on this planet.  We could all be experiments, and that the leaders of the nation like the president and the government are all experimenters, we are their instruments, thats where the idea of having a parallel universe came from, which is craaaazy af.  I guess you could prove me wrong by saying that we have fossils, we have, rock layers, its scientifically impossible for your theory to be true, which is correct....  unless the "experimenters" created the earth, and the earth is just a container for us, so that we don't escape and destroy other "containers".  If this is true, then we will never have to worry about our universe's fate again, the experimenters will always watch over us.  SCIENCE HAS PROVEN OTHERWISE  The presumption of "How do you know? Were you there?" seems to be that only first-hand, eyewitness testimony is reliable - and so it is illegitimate to make inferences about things beyond our immediate observations. Therefore, this argument presumes that material evidence that isn't reliant on a personal observation is invalid, even though it is often the best and least biased form of evidence available. When considering historical evidence, first-hand accounts (primary sources) are generally taken as better evidence than second or third-hand accounts and those written down long after the fact (secondary sources). However, this is a mere guideline and the first-hand accounts can often be subject to greater bias, as even eyewitnesses can lie, exaggerate or simply view events through their own political or social twist.[3] This is why gathering evidence about the past is an exercise in the interplay between direct and indirect forms of evidence (particularly the material, non-personal evidence dismissed by this creationist claim), and looking at individual pieces of evidence with a knowledgeable and critical eye. With this in mind, we can unravel the fallacies in this creationist "argument". 

SO YOU DECIDE, WAS I RAISED IN A LAB?