FWIW, the debate on this topic is pretty humorous in my view, and it's often discussed by people who actually don't climb mountains.
One can make all sorts of criteria about what a continent is. Politically, of course the Carstenz Pyramid, being part of Indonesia, is in the continent of Asia.
From a tectonic plate perspective (which is I gather what you mean by "geology") it again depends on definition. There are 7 "Major" plates, which geologists define as being bigger than 20MM square Kilometers. Both Kozi and the Pyramid reside on what is know as the Indo-Australian Plate, which is comprised of two sub plates--that which contains Australia and the other that contains India. In this respect both the Pyramid and Kozi are part of Indo-Australia, but then so is India (even though most people say its the Asian sub-continent)
The Australian Plate itself is major. Technically, from a Geologic perspective, the Pyramid sits on the adjacent Maoke micro-plate, which is not physically connected to the Australian Plate but most people group the Maoke Microplate and six other Microplates with the Australia Plate.
Some folks, because the Pyramid resides (politically) in Asia, say Mount Cook in New Zealand is actually the highest in the Australian continent, as it sits on the New Zealand south island. Others dispute the boundary between Europe and Asia and consider Mount Blanc the highest in Europe and not Elbrus--so if you really want to be a nudge, you could say that Anders climbed only 5 of the 7.
Further, one could claim that there really are only six "Seven Summits" since the division between Europe and Asia is arbitrary as they are one continuous landmass.
------
Anyways, I guess its more about mountaineering tradition than what arm-chair, "horizontal" critics think. By tradition there are a group of folks who subscribe to the Bass definition and another group who subscribe to the Messner definition. Some folks feel they need to climb 8 so they don't have to deal with debates like this. others feel different variations than these are the correct list (these are usually the people who did that particular list first or who want it to be more exclusive).
FWIW, my son is very comfortable with the original definition (as am I) and find it amusing when you get little comments like Tri-Yoda's comment. It reminds me of some of the debates about whether or not Kona is really the world championship.
There are lots of haters out there who try to tear things down. I think its all great--people do some pretty amazing things (and my son surely did) and we ultimately should rejoice in it and use it as inspiration...Just my opinion. I do know what he did is pretty amazing and most of his high altitude mountaineering peers and friends (including the late great Ueli Stick who he talked to about this topic) consider those who climb the 7 my son climbed to be part of that small group who have climbed the Seven Summits....and that's good enough for me as well!
Randy Christofferson(
http://www.rcmioga.blogspot.com Insert Doubt. Erase Hope. Crush Dreams.