Here's why this was a valid argument at the time:
* Lack of understanding of Earth's interior: Before the discovery of seafloor spreading and the development of the theory of plate tectonics, scientists didn't fully understand the structure and dynamics of the Earth's mantle. The idea of continents plowing through solid rock seemed implausible.
* No evidence for movement: Early proponents of continental drift, like Alfred Wegener, presented strong evidence for the past connection of continents. However, the lack of direct evidence of continents moving in the present day made it difficult to convince many scientists.
However, this argument was eventually overcome by:
* The discovery of seafloor spreading: This provided the mechanism for plate movement. The discovery of mid-ocean ridges, magnetic stripes, and the age of ocean floor rocks showed that new crust is formed at these ridges, and the plates move away from them.
* Further understanding of Earth's mantle: Geologists discovered that the Earth's mantle is not a solid rock but a viscous, flowing material. This flow, driven by convection currents, provides the force needed to move the plates.
The discovery of seafloor spreading and the development of the theory of plate tectonics provided a compelling explanation for how continents move. This, along with other supporting evidence, eventually led to the widespread acceptance of the theory, overcoming the initial argument against it.
