@FBM,
FBM wrote:To wit: Define "fake theory."
A (standard, normal - call it as you wish) theory is a set of statements for explaining or representing some piece of knowledge with justification that is used also to assign the truth value of that statements. The components of a theory that have no justification, but are accepted true by default (usually as obvious) are called
axioms. All the other statements (or claims of the theory) are called theorems, or simply inferences (a set of logical inferences leading to a new standing of the knowledge representation). The inferences may be a chain of math calculations, but they can be also made on the basis of a predefined set of inference rules (logical inference) like, for example
generalization, Specialization, Induction, Deduction, Logical exclusion, Non-contradiction, Excluded logical fallacies, etc.
Example: if we have a set of [[red][green][blue]] the Generalizaion of these is [color] (it may be also [basic screen mode] if you like).
When a theory does not comply with any logical formal model - it is called
implausible ... as a theory; and when a theory is full of self-contradictions and is contradicting also to fundamental laws of major sciences (like physics and math logic - that it is supposed to live in harmony with), it is called
unsustainable ... impossible as a theory - it cannot exist as a theory, not as a set of claims in some subject matter - and when an
implausible &
unsustainable 'theory' appears on the 'event horizon' and self-pronounces as a 'standard theory explaining everything' (without even having the qualities of explaining everything, along the other things) - this is called
how?
On the other hand
fake in the sense of counterfeit means to imitate something. Counterfeit products are fake replicas of the real product. Counterfeit products are often produced with the intent to take advantage of the superior value of the imitated product. The word counterfeit frequently describes both the forgeries of currency and documents, as well as the imitations of clothing, handbags, shoes, pharmaceuticals, aviation and automobile parts, watches, electronics (both parts and finished products), software, works of art, toys, movies.
Now if you make a logical inference over the two definitions you may have the definition of
fake theory.
Jeebus, if you were any more dense, light would bend around you. You were just called on using the "god of the gaps" fallacy and respond with another god of the gaps fallacy. Comedy gold!!! 
Yer killin' me, Homer. You have no idea about basic logic, apparently. Committing a logical fallacy doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong; it only means that your argument doesn't lead to your conclusion. You have to make new premises and try again. You seem to think that if any random individual on the internet can't present irrefutable proof of every aspect of the universe from the beginning of time, you automatically get a gap to wedge your "personal 45% god" into. Figure it out, dunce. 
If you had even a microscopic mote of evidence for your "personal 45% god," then our demands might be equivalent. Show me a microscopic mote, at least, of such evidence, then we're in a position to compare it to the evidence for the scientific cosmology. Until then, you're just digging yourself a deeper hole, exposing your ignorance more and more. Keep it up, though. It's pretty entertaining, watching you shoot yourself in the foot over and over and over and over and over again. 
