Can India Have Been Nod East of Eden?

How do I test this?

Well, one basic for Nod is, it cannot have been all sea and no land.

We are not asking "was India Nod" - which I believe is correct on other grounds - but "can it have been Nod", as in : was there land?

Palaeocritti : India
https://sites.google.com/site/palaeocritti/by-location/india

Kota formation and Gondhwana Group are both Andhra Pradesh, which was land since including Sauropods.

Lameta formation was also land and is in Madhya Pradesh.

Subathi and Harudi formations are in parts of what is now Uttarakhand and Gujarat and it was sea, since including whales.

Pre-Flood Land states:



Pre-Flood Sea states:



So, yes, parts of India do at least fit the land criterium of Nod, east of Eden.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Wednesday of Holy Week
28.III.2018

Update, next day: how many of the whales are really whales? Material from Palaeocritti site, quoted and commented on:

Kutchicetus minimus, Locality: Godhatad, Kachchh, western India; Indocetus ramani, Near Harudi, Kutch district, Gujarat, India; Debhra, Sulayman range, Punjab, Pakistan; perhaps also Remingtonocetus harudiensis, Locality: Southwestern Kutch, Gujarat province, India & Kohat District, Pakistan : these seem to have hind limbs and therefore not necessarily to be whales or marine at all.

They would be classified as being whales (or in the Remingtonocetus case, as having hind limbs, perhaps) on the theory that whales evolved from land mammals.

Himalayacetus subathuensis : "Himalayacetus is only known from a fragmentary left mandible but it predates Pakicetus making it the earliest known cetacean. It was found in a marine strata and was inferred to be an amphibious animal."

In other words, probably a real whale, and we have no real evidence it had any hind limbs, it was found in marine strata and only a mandible.

Andrewsiphius sloani : the skull looks more marine than sth we expect on land. And yes, all specimina are from skull, more or less, including mandibles and maxillae galore.

Babiacetus indicus, Holotype (GSI 19647): left and right dentaries with cheek teeth; Referred specimens: GSP-UM 3005 (much of skull and lower jaws, Pakistan specimen);

Babiacetus mishrai, Holotype (RUSB 2512): partial skull.

It would seem that (GSP-UM 3005) looks marine-ish.

Gaviacetus razai, Holotype (GSP-UM 3095): cranium with associated postcranial elements.

Gaviacetus sahnii, Holotype (VPL 1021): fragmentary skull.

Neither seems to involve any evidence as to totality of skeleton ... I take "associated postcranial elements" as meaning those which would be near cranium?

Gaviacetus sahnii, Referred specimens: RUSB 2024, RUSB 2023, RUSB 2027 ... we are not told on this site what they look like.