Nice turn of phrase there, Tom, but illogical.
What I should have said before, is that, his observations are indisputable. He's got a theory, not unlike those who pitch the Pangea idea. Unlike them, however, he has a model that is intuitively simple and easily observed by others.
Of course, his theory raises lots of other questions, but that's what science is about. Making observations of the known universe, then advancing various theories to explain the observed phenomena, which are then compared to even more detailed investigations - repeat and rinse. At each stage of the cycle, however, that which is honestly observed, does not get thrown out. Only the theories which fail to explain the observed phenomena.
This is why the theory of anthropogenic global warming is in trouble. It fails to predict and explain the observed phenomena.
Neal Adams has made an honest and intriguing observation. The proper scientific response at this point, is to advance a theory to explain it. Not explain away the observations themselves.