Let's focus on the crucial aspect of uniformitarianism that we are discussing, the assumption that natural processes as observed in the present were responsible for how the natural world was formed in the past. Again, the Scriptures make the claim that all things were created ex nihilo and that a global catastrophic event took place. Both assertions are diametrically opposed to the uniformitarian understanding of earth history.
Lets focus even further. I can't discuss every scientific conclusion and assumption in a single post! Do you want to discuss creation or a proposed global flood? Since scientists have concluded that the environment in an area has been changing, or that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, how can you claim a blanket "scientists assume uniformitarianism?" Shouldn't you mention at least ONE assumption that you have an issue with instead of making me list evidnece for specific conclusions that scientists have made while you dismiss them with "we're not getting anywhere because you don't understand ex nihilo creation." Fine, I don't understand your point of view? Explain it to me in detail (or explain even a small part of it we could discuss in detail) instead of simply repeating your claim that I'm wrong because I don't understand your point of view!
In both of the above cases, the evidence looks EXACTLY as we would expect if the same processes working today were working then. The emission and absorption lines in light that has propagated across the universe shows that however long it's been propagating, the processes of radiation have not changed. Now since the stars are millions and billions of lightyears away, scientists can conclude that radiation has not changed over this period.
Of course, if you claim that the universe is only 6000 years old, then you are left with the evidence that somehow light moved faster than it does today, but that doesn't change the fact that the emission and absorption lines are EXACTLY the same as they are today. This shows that even if you make the
a priori assumption that the universe is no more than 6000 years old, the processes that govern radioactive decay today were the same when the light was emitted (i.e. 6000 years ago).
The other option is that God created the light to only LOOK like it came from stars that used the same processes as today. If you want to discuss the Oomphalos argument, just say so, but it's been pretty strongly defeated in mainstream Christianity for hundreds of years now.
Evidence regarding a flood is similar. We know how floods deposit material so we can look for evidence of a flood. We also see things like huge termite mounds that take decades to grow, or multiple layers of fossilized tree stumps that still have their rootlets fixed in the sedement in which they were buried (showing that they were never uprooted). Again, all the evidence points to well-understood mechanisms that produced these features. There is in fact no evidence whatsoever that these termite mounds were miraculously poofed into the middle of flood sedements or that worm burrows that take years to construct were created in only seconds as thousands of tons of sedement rained down on each successive burrow.
You claim you want to discuss uniformitarianism. Are you going to continue to hide behind vague statements or should we get to some specific assumptions you claim are unfounded? The bottom line is that you are in error in claiming that the Bible teaches creation 6000 years ago when the truth is that these accounts were never intended as historical. Creation Ex Nihilo is a bit more vague as it could certainly encompass the current scientific concensus of the Big Bang.
What you have utterly failed to do is give textual, cultural or even scientific evidence that any SPECIFIC conclusion about the past is unfounded. All you've done is claim that there are some assumptions that contradict the Bible. Let's get down to details -- I've mentioned a few specifics that creationists often bring up. If you don't like them, bring up your own.
Give us a specific scientific conclusion you disagree with, and perhaps physical evidence, textual analysis or cultural reasons why this conclusion contradicts your interpretation of the Bible. Then I think this thread can get somewhere. Just saying, "uniformitarianism is against the Bible" is useless because you haven't shown that scientists have made this assumption (rather than concluding it based on evidence) and you haven't show how or even shown that the Bible contradicts uniformitarianism. I'm spending quite a bit of time trying to respond to this thread. If you don't like my responses, please just put in a little work yourself detailing what you're claiming so my next detailed post isn't responding to another vague comment.