Good grief, of COURSE I'm "mak ing stuff up," that's ALL anyone can do with the one-time event of the long-past Flood.
Well no, some people are smart enough to study the evidence and come up with scientific explanations for phenomenon in the long-past.
They try to form a theory that fits the evidence, and then they test it and test it and test it.
You, on the other hand, try to find evidence that fits your theory, and then you fantasize and fantasize and fantasize.
You might as well be talking about super heroes.
It's all I do and it's all the Flood debunkers do too. "Oh this that or the other physical fact "proves" there couldn't have been such a Flood." Same way I work, only I'm looking for ways it COULD work and they aren't and just about all the scenarios the debunkers have in mind are totally inadequate to what the reality must have been, all superficial straw man stuff.
Scientifically minded people realize that the best merits of a theory are when its able to stand up against falsification tests. Only after lots of testing and we learn that we cannot figure out any way to actually falsify the theory, does it start to get any serious consideration from anybody.
That's why your Flood ideas will never get respect, like my theories on Batman and Darth Vader, if they're not just downright impossible, then they are not falsifiable.
Nobody is impressed by your ability to make stuff up.
But as far as method goes, for both sides it's a matter of imagining the physical situation as plausibly as possible.
Oh, I suppose that you just fail to realize that your ideas are in no way plausible.