Why N. Mesopotamia / E. Anatolia Might Fit Better then S. Mesopotamia, Genesis 11

First, forget about Shinear being Sumer. Sumerians may have called their land Sumer because they claimed to overlordship over all Shinear, or it may ba a homophone or there may be some other glitch. But Sumer indicating Southern Mesopotamia only while North Mesopotamia was divided between Akkadians and Elamites and perhaps some more, that is a non-clue.

Next, Shinear means Mesopotamia.

This being so, S. Mesopotamia (where Sumer is, and perhaps Babylon would be its limit to N. Mesopotamia) and N. Mesopotamia are equally feasible. Real S. Mesopotamia were the delta lands which since back then have continued in a united delta of Shatt el Arab. The confluence between Euphrates and Tigris is just N. of Basra, which did not exist even the ground for in very Ancient times.

Now, here is the interesting stuff. There are two indications differentiating Babel of Nimrod from Babylon.

The first one is, we suppose that Babel of Nimrod, mentioned in Genesis 10, is equal to Babel of Confusion, mentioned in Genesis 11. Note very well, we would here have another example of a figure already shown between Genesis 1 and 2. One verse in chapter 10 is expanded to a full narrative in part of chapter 11.

Genesis 10:[10] And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, and Arach, and Achad, and Chalanne in the land of Sennaar.

Actually it is only the first half of the verse which corresponds to first half of chapter 11.

Note, Babylon is in Akkadian Bab-Ilu, "gate of the gods" or "of God", and in Hebrew that would be Bab-El (in the sense "gate of God"). A perfect homophone for that other Babel which means "babble" or "confusion".

So, we can identify Nimrod's Babylon with the Babel, with some safety of guessing. Nimrod meant it as Bab-El - a gate up to God - and Moses (with his predecessors, perhaps Abraham on this point of narrative) comments "And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded" like "let's ignore Nimrod's confused point, here is another confusion which is more important" or was at least more important in practical terms back then.

Now, why can't the Babel of Confusion be "Babylon" as in 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E?

Because of previous verse : "And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city."

You can take it weakly and say "they ceased to build the city back then, but resumed building later". I take it strongly and say "they ceased to build the city and even made sure it would not be resumed by burying it in sand" - as you know my hobby horse the Babel of Confusion is Göbekli Tepe.

Would this mean the tying of Nimrod of Babylon - 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E - is wrong? No. Babylon is a concept more than a locality. Babylon as 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E was one of the ensuing materialisations of that concept, the one relevant for Daniel under Nebuchadnezzar's rule. Even 41°54′08″N 12°27′12″E seems to have been materialising the concept, to St Peter, at least according to the Catholic reading of I Peter 5:13. So, like the Babylon power has moved since Daniel's time from Babylon to Susa, from Susa to ... Pella? ... Alexandria? ... and from whereever the Greek manifestation was to Rome, the same power can easily have moved from Göbekli Tepe to Babylon, from 37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E to 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E. The move South is 313'12", the move East is 329'54", and since 300 minutes are 5 degrees, it is for both directions a bit more than 5 degrees, and clearly less than 6 degrees.

So, if original Babylon was Göbekli Tepe, it is no huge mystery why Babylon as historically known would have the same name, while the covering of Göbekli Tepe in sand fits the verse 8 very well.

Now, here is what could be a clincher.

Genesis 11:2 And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.

It does not say "they found the plain land called Shinear", it says they found a plain in Shinear.

At 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E you won't find a plain, because everything everywhere around is a plain. You could just as well "find" a grain of sand in Sahara or a drop of water in the Ocean.

At 37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E, the land can still be considered as Shinear, since Shinear is Mesopotamia, the land between Euphrates and Tigris, but you can't consider the whole landscape as a plain. This means, the plain is sth which you can actually find, something which can actually surprise you.



Attribution of image : 37.223056,38.9225 on Google maps + turning 90° to the right.

I consulted the terms, it seems this is covered by fair use and even printed books under 5000 copies would be OK without specific permission.

Thank you very much, Google maps!

So, the area is hilly, but there is a plain somewhere here. It does not need to remain a complete plain to our times, especially if the city was covered in sand. Zooming out, in fact the plain as such could be the "Tek Tek Daghlari Milli Parki" (if I tie text to the right feature) - an area bounded by Sanliurfa in the North West corner, bounded in the West also by Sultantepe and Mutlukaya, and which has Harran in the middle (the people who consider Sanliurfa as Ur Chasdim also consider this as the Haran). Akçakale is in the middle of the South border. Gögeç is in the South East corner. Karaali and Mamuca are further North, Karaali on the East border and Mamuca a bit inside.

The surrounding country, including Göbekli Tepe itself, is hilly. The plain I just found on Google maps may very well be the same that they found back then - it is something which, unlike the plain at Babylon, which is definitely not standing out from any other plain, since all the area is plainly very plain. You can't find a plain inside a plain, you can only find a plain in hilly country. This is an indication I could be right.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Martina, Virgin and Martyr
30.I.2018

PS, it seems I lost the relevant part of the map while turning it to the right. Here it is:



PPS, I can as well add some big picture. I have underlined Göbekli Tepe, made a circle around the plain, and made pointers to high up points of Euphrates and Tigris:



As you can see, the plain is on the North border of Syria to Turkey./HGL

Neat Argument - and Neat Answer, if I May Say So Myself

Anthony Zarrella is one of my favourite Catholic quorans.

We differ on who is Pope and we differ - respectfully - on Creation vs Evolution issue.

Anthony Zarrella

B R E A K
B R E A D
T R E A D
T R E N D

Is “trend” similar to “break”? Not really, no. But each step is similar to the step before it—and that’s only in four steps.

Me

Your example of “break” to “trend” is isolated to one word.

Try changing whole texts from like to unlike, like “twinkle, twinkle, little star” to “it’s a long way to Tipperary” one letter at a time and each making sense as a text.

That comes closer to evolution “between kinds”.

The whole debate my be upcoming on Assorted Retorts, later, but for now I give this argument./HGL

"Introibo" makes an ass of himself - unless his priest is abusing him

Creation vs. Evolution : "Introibo" makes an ass of himself - unless his priest is abusing him · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Introibo Blogger Misrepresents Galileo Case Inter Alia

In British English, "ass" means what Americans call "jackass", nothing worse. Donkey is also current in both languages, and I think they would want an apology if conscious of being compared to an evolutionist or two. Which, luckily for them, they aren't.

Let us quote:

Moses*, who wrote the Book of Genesis, used the Hebrew word "yom"--which means a time period of unspecified length as it was used at the time. It was translated as "day."

It means day. Like day it can in some contexts mean sth other than 12 hours that are light or 24 consecutive hours shared outside polar regions between light and dark. If Pius XII - whom "Introibo" you later bring on - thought anything else, he was misled. He can have chosen to be misled.

"Whether in the designation and distinction of six days with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word 'DAY' can be assumed either in its proper sense of a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among the exegetes?"

On June 30, 1909, the Commission (with full approval from His Holiness Pope St. Pius X) responded:

"IN THE AFFIRMATIVE"

So far, fine.

Are you quoting the rest?

This also comports with the Commission's decision of June 23, 1905 (also approved by Pope St. Pius X) that Scripture gives historical accounts except "...where without opposing the sense of the Church and preserving its judgement, it is proved with strong arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to put down true history, and history properly so-called, but to set forth, under the appearance and form of history a parable, an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or historical significance of the words."

Yes, and as there are really and truly no such indications of Moses meaning sth else than giving history, the decision of 1905 clearly means that Genesis 1 to 11 is history, not fable, history, not allegorical fable (I am not saying there is no allegory in history!).

Key word PROVEN.

"In my opinion (and consistent with the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission approved by Pope St. Pius X), Moses meant to convey that man was God's special creation, so the Earth (our planet) takes place of pride over the other celestial bodies."

No, Sir.

You stated it as your OPINION that Moses meant to convey sth other than a strictly historical account of not only what God did but how God did it.

Your OPINION is not PROVEN fact.

Therefore you are violating the decision of 1905 by deviating from Genesis 1 to 11 as history.

Next question?

Oh, yes, Humani Generis by the maybe Pope Pius XII.

"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that ..."

Taste these words a little.

Catholics are allowed to remarry if they become widows or widowers, unless the widowers have first been ordained and unless widows or widowers have after loss of conjoint entered a monastery and made eternal vows.

No Pope could ever formulate this as "the pastoral authority of the church does not at present forbid widows and widowers to remarry, pending future modifications from research by psychiologists" or anything like that.

And the words corresponding to "at present" and "pending future" etc. while not in the line I just quoted are paralleled definitely all along the rest of the quote from Humani Generis. In other words, Humani Generis does not mean we can believe Evolution if we feel like it (the wording does not discuss what we are at liberty to believe in our hearts even) like definitions immemorable mean we are free to eat meat (unless it is a day when the Church forbids that).

You are also missing that you may not be an expert of both Biblical exegesis and natural sciences, I am probably more so than you on both accounts.

You proceed to complain of any Catholic disagreeing with you on holding Old Earth to be licit like a widower remarrying is definitely licit in a way totally disagreeing with the conditions posed by Pius XII, your darling:

"However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith."

Note, you are socially treating those differing from your way to a traditional way like heretics disputing the freedoms of Catholics. That is definitely incompatible with the condition here given.

Note also, Pacelli was a lawyer before he maybe became a Pope. He does not specify the decision of the Church has to be a future one. He is hiding, but not daring to deny it could well be that the decision is already given.

Church Fathers. Trent. 1905. 1909.

Here is a theologian from 1955, Sagues:

"It is assumed that the hypothesis is not certainly directly or indirectly opposed to revelation, since otherwise it would be totally rejected; it is assumed it can, since the Church does not forbid it, be freely discussed in the present-day context of theology and natural science (this does not include everyone), but only by experts in both camps"

I am in the anti-Evolution camp and after 15 years of debate, sorry, 16, an amateur expert (note, the Latin expertes does not involve the connotation of University accredited expertise that the translation has!) of both Biblical and Scientifical evidence relevant to the matter. I can therefore on these terms discuss it. Even assuming Pius XII was a true Pope, even assuming he was giving a charitable rather than an iniquitous judgement (being careful not to taint his infallibility by any direct favouring of the theory he seems by then to have favoured, to the detriment of his faith), even assuming I am schismatic for not recognising his authority, even assuming all this, I am not violating in fact his conditions.**

You are. Repeating his words to shut down the debate by those who have more definite reasons against Evolution than you have and even by those who would like to favour Evolution by argument more direct than merely "canonic", that is the very opposite of even his ruling. You are violating it.

Learn to read before you start to write.

Learn justice before you start judging.

The exact age of the earth in terms of how many centuries more or less, is not and probably cannot be infallibly defined.

We have Vulgate which can be read as 6000 years (which is why Haydock commentary on its translation Douay Rheims gives Ussher years for OT events).

We have LXX, the standard text of which can easily be read as the 7500 years of Syncellus or its near equivalent Byzantine martyrology (September 1 in their case, perhaps?).

We have the calculation of St Jerome, based on what seems to be a non-standard LXX version, perhaps a LXX tradition without the Second Cainan. In this sense, we were 7199 in 2000 AD. It is used in the Roman Martyrology for December 25.

There is an excellent reason why the Church is not deciding between these and defining one of these at the cost of the other ones. No one of these can claim exclusive rights to defending Biblical literal inerrantism on Genesis early history.

All of them do.

None of the at least first and last can be seen as violating Trent, or both do.

You define 6000 years, you ditch Roman Martyrology and therefore violate Trentine defense of Traditional Mass Liturgy.

You define 7200 years, you ditch the Vulgate reading and thereofore violate a rigorist at least reading of the "as contained in the Vulgate" clause of canonic books. Also a requirement of Trent.

But not deciding between 6000 and 7200 years is very far from not deciding between 6000 and 4.5 billion years. You are off by orders of magnitude between the latitude Catholicism actually allows.

Perhaps the days before creation of the Sun were not 24 hours long, but only 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds? The first light God created could have been rotating (see book I of De Genesis ad Litteram, read it through in a Loeb edition, not just the quote you love quotemining) at same speed as the aether which is presumably rotating around earth at full circle that time. Creation of Sun slowed the day down a bit.

Or, the Church has not condemned the Augustinian position which Palmar de Troya dared to dogmatise : "in one moment" (taken from a discussion from same work, but books 5 and 6*** - a discussion St Augustine ends by noting a one moment creation is not a compulsory feat of mental gymnastics, it is fine for beginners at least to stick with the actual six days).

In other words, the question has its shades - and evades certain nuances like directly asking on long ages - and the answer is as rough and ready as I was asked to yesterday by a believer in OSAS.°

This does not directly make the answer applicable as an affirmative to a specific version of the "not 24 hours".

The question was not posed as involving long ages as one such alternative to strictly 24 hours. There may have been an attempt to do so, and it may have been sent back unpublished with comments (not from Pope St Pius X, certainly) "on these terms I can give no wiggle room : you want wiggle room, be less specific". Presumably more direct wiggle room could have been given with Rampolla as Pope - and Pacelli was, I seem to recall, close to Rampolla at this or some close time.

In sum, you have done a nice work of quotemining and discussing glibly documents of Church Authority which you seem incapable of totally grasping the implications of, you have shown yourself as an ass (donkey) in the process of being the other kind of ass towards the kind of Traditional Catholics you don't happen to like. Because they take social risks you don't feel prepared to take and you feel implied even in their taking this.

Meanwhile, since the actual terms of Pius XII involved a weighing of evidence, it is noteworthy that the evidence which has come up since then on the Creationist side is being ignored and also purposefully ignored, but it is there.

And it is momentous, since a Creationist timeline of Göbekli Tepe would probably make it Babel, and that means wheat is post-Flood, and that means Cain when sacrificing "fruits of the earth" was not sacrificing wheat.

And non-Catholics - both Protestant and Jews - are contributing to showing it. Are we seeing the children of the kingdom (that is, of the Catholic Church) about to be thrown out and strangers about to be invited?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Marcellus I°°
16.I.2018

PS The addition in the title refers to the possibility that the laymen called "Introibo" on the web, since anonymously or pseudonymously writing the blog "Introibo ad altare Dei" could be handing on what he had from a priest who, in this fashion, is not attacked himself by those responding to it./HGL

PPS, here are references to fuller text of Bible commission 1909 and 1905: 1905 & 1909 - when I accuse someone of quotemining, I had better not ask everyone else to just take my word for it, let alone himself.

PPPS, spotted a "psychiologists" which should obviously be shorter by an i.

* "Introibo" : Monkey Business About Creation
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.fr/2017/02/monkey-business-about-creation.html

** Note : when I started, or a little after that, I was Palmarian. I was therefore believing the Church had already given a definition subsequent to Humani Generis, since that is what Gregorio XVII did (he went for 6000 years, not 7200, see below for details). But more importantly, I already knew that the Church had really defined the question by its being there in all Church Fathers treating on it as per Trent.

*** I think St Augustine may also have discussed his one moment creation briefly in Confessiones, since the six days had prevented his conversion from Gnostic or Manichaean as in "why would God need so much time".

° Catholic magisterium has some in common with Evangelical street preachers (though this one was over internet) and I am not writing magisterially. The commission of St Pius X was.

°° Romae, via Salaria, natalis sancti Marcelli Primi, Papae et Martyris; qui, ob catholicae fidei confessionem, jubente Maxentio tyranno, primo caesus est fustibus, deinde ad servitium animalium cum custodia publica deputatus, et ibidem, serviendo indutus amictu cilicino, defunctus est.

Cain Did Not Sacrifice Wheat

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Origin of Wheat? · Creation vs. Evolution : Cain Did Not Sacrifice Wheat

There is a simple reason for this.

Domesticated, that is cultivable, wheat is from a post-Flood mutation, from near Göbekli Tepe.

Wild wheat is structured so that each grain, as it ripens, falls off the plant and could possibly even fly some distance by itself. The grain is attached by a layer of cells which is detroyed when the grain ripens.

In normal wheat, by a mutation, the layer of cells does not autodestruct, but the grains stay together on the plant - bad for self sowing or sowing by birds, but ideal for harvesting by man and sowing after harvest by man.

The wild wheat is still there about 30 km from Göbekli Tepe.

Now, this means, cultivation of wheat, like cultivation of wine - both of them elements of the Holy Eucharist - is a post-Flood thing.

This of course means, Cain was offering something else. I checked the Bible does not say wheat in Genesis 4.

Look at this text, by Leanne Guenther:

Cain thought his little brother was a bit silly for giving up his best lamb. "Good grief," he thought. "We need that lamb, God doesn't. I'm sure He'd be just as happy if we sacrificed the runt of the litter. In fact, why does it need to be a lamb at all? I'm a farmer and it's been a great year for my wheat crop -- I can't use everything I've grown. Why don't I just burn some of the extra straw I have. That way, I won't be wasting any."

I think rather, he sacrificed from a plant other than wheat.

The displeasure of God foreshadows the displeasure of God in the last times, when some Catholic or perhaps more properly ex-Catholic priests have, after Vatican II and Liturgic reform, tried to consecrate maize bread or rice bread instead of unleavened wheat bread. Burning straw would not have been likely to occur even to Cain, he was hardly that stupid. But whether it did or not, God did not show displeasure at a sacrifice in wheat. It cannot have been in wheat, since wheat could not yet be cultivated.

Perhaps it was maize, and he tried offering God some pop-corn - and God was not feeling like going to a cinema. To use some understatement. I am very much reminded of how Reverend Bryan Houghton had to tell a junior priest at a point between Vatican II and the final liturgic reform "no, you cannot consecrate coke and potato crisps" (or whatever it was).

Now, this involves a bit of a quandary about the New Offertory.

As those who studied the Liturgic Reform know, the new offertory is from the Seder meal which for the blessing of bread and wine is identic to the Sabbath meal on Friday evening.

I was wondering whether the Sabbath meal involved some kind of attempt at a slur against the Holy Mass by implying sacrifice of wheat bread is somehow Cainite, we should just bless and not sacrifice it. No, not quite:

Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who brings forth bread from the earth. (Amen)

But here is the corresponding passage in New Offertory (quite different from the old one!):

Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received the bread (and wine) we offer you: fruit of the earth and work of hymn [human] hands, it will become for us the bread of life.

Similar for the offering of wine. Hence my striking out of (and wine).

(Forma Ordinaria - a word used on that forum question - means New Liturgy, since in 2007 or earlier "Benedict XVI" made the Traditional Liturgy licit as "Forma Extraordinaria" - sth to use on special conditions).

This means, New Offertory is fairly alone in using specifically for wheat bread (at the moment of the offertory it is still bread, though from then on it belongs to God, it will a few minutes later become the Body of Christ) the words used about Cain's sacrifice - a sacrifice which from now on we know cannot have been made in wheat. Because wheat is post-Flood.

For my part, I am the kind of Catholic who won't call the Traditional Rite "forma Extraordinaria" and who no longer goes to New Rite on Sundays.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre
II Sunday after Epiphany
14.I.2018

Question for Madagascar ...

I am looking up Madagascar on the google site Palaeocritti.

Brief review of what periods mean. Upper is more recent than lower of each. And middle comes in between.

The named labels are from less to more recent : Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous.

This means that a creature from "Upper Jurassic" should be older than any creature from Cretaceous, upper or lower, and more recent than any from Lower Jurassic, any Triassic or any Permian.

Now, I am looking - or was a moment ago and will again - at a specific creature from Upper Jurassic.

Brachypterygius

As it is an ichthyosaur, it lived in water.

This any creationist as much as any evolutionist will admit.

Brachypterygius extremus (which is one of them) has an age and distribution of :

Horizon:

Kimmeridge Clay (Kimmeridgian, Upper Jurassic)

Locality:

Smallmouth Sands, Dorset, UK; Wiltshire and Cambridgeshire, UK; Volga and Saratov regions, Russia; Madagascar.

And sure enough, the page for Madagascar is - no, wait, it is simply listing genus. I'll look at the page to see if some other species is also from Madagascar.

Brachypterygius mordax - no.

Brachypterygius cantabrigiensis - no.

So, it is actually just Brachypterygius extremus which is from Madagascar too.

This means, some place on Madagascar is labelled as Kimmeridgian, Upper Jurassic and you found Brachypterygius extremus there.

All the other creatures listed for Madagascar are - it would seem - land animals.

Rahonavis ostromi

- Horizon:

Upper Cretaceous (?Campanian) Maevarano Formation

Type Locality:

Mahajanga Basin, northwestern Madagascar

Question part 1 : was the Brachopterygius found below any Rahonavis ostromi or was the Rahonavis ostromi found above any Brachopterygius?

Any Cretaceous is supposed to be more recent than Upper Jurassic.

Majungasaurus crenatissimus:

Horizon:

Anembalemba Member, the uppermost white sandstone stratum of the Maevarano Formation, Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian)

Locality:

Mahajanga, Madagascar

OK, found along the Rahonavis. Not sure how close or how far.

Question part 2 : was the Brachopterygius found under any Majungasaurus? Or was the Majungasaurus found above any Brachopterygius?

Question part 3 : if you plot the space between Rahonavis and Majungasaurus on a map, or between more than one of each (Majungasaurus has more than one cranium, so more than one specimen) (Rahonavis was just one skeleton), was there any Brachopterygius found in between these, either physically lower in the ground, or in such a place as to indicate present surface was physically lower?

The questions 2 and 3 multiply if you add the several specimens of Masiakasaurus knopfleri (UA 8680, FMNH PR 2108–2182, UA 8681–8696) (Locality: Mahajanga Basin, near the village of Berivotra, northwestern Madagascar), and of the somewhat fewer Behemoths of Rapetosaurus krausei label. (We deal with : UA 8698 as holotype and then the referred specimina FMNH PR 2184-2192, 2194, 2196, 2197, 2209, 2210, UCB 92829). (Mahajanga basin, northwestern Madagascar.)

They multiply just a bit more, if you add Simosuchus clarki (Crocodylomorpha Notosuchia Chimaerasuchidae) and Araripesuchus tsangatsangana (Crocodylomorpha Notosuchia), who, poor crocs, have no separate pages (let's suppose they could shed crocodile tears for that!).

But all so far, except the Brachypterygius, are from Maevarano Formation, Mahajanga, Madagascar, Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian).

We also have four types of Eosuchia - sounds like crocs, early or dawning crocs - from Madagascar, Upper Permian (Wuchiapingian), outside and inside Lower Sakamena Formation. As well as from Middle Sakamena Formation, Madagascar, Lower Triassic (Induan). At least three places or "layers" with crocs.

Now, recall, these are supposed to be earlier than Upper Jurassic.

Question part 4 : is Brachopterygius found above any of these or is any of these found below a Brachopterygius? Is there a place between either where it is physically closer to present ground level or as close to present ground level in which there is a clear physical indication of this having been closer to surfaces since then eroded?

Middle Jurassic is also supposed to be earlier than Upper Jurassic. So where does Isalo III Formation, Madagascar, Middle Jurassic (Bathonian) get us?

We have an Archosaur and two Sauropoda (Behemoths, on Kent Hovind's view). Razanandrongobe sakalavae (Archosauria), Archaeodontosaurus descouensi (Sauropoda), Lapparentosaurus madagascariensis (Sauropoda Macronaria Brachiosauridae).

Question part 5 : is Brachopterygius found above any of these at least three specimina?

Because, if all parts of the question can be summed up as "no", I think where Brachopterygius was found was pre-Flood sea, where the other creatures were found was pre-Flood land.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of Holy Innocents
4.I.2018