I don't think so because the longest anyone has ever been known to live is 969 years*. Who have been the observers who would be able to verify and record a constancy dating back billions of years? Where human intelligence is concerned (and that means "science" because science is completely limited to human intelligence), there is no record to affirm what we naturally assume to be true.
I can accept uniformitarianism as a reasonable position. From my experience in life I could easily accept the proposition that the sun revolves around the earth as reasonable, too. From my position as an observer that is exactly what it does, and no scientist will ever prove me wrong. All physical motion is relative to the point from which it is viewed. You could claim yourself to be the center of the universe, and for all science knows, you'd be absolutely correct.
Also, do we have any choices other than that a.) time has no beginning, or b.) it does. I mean, science has to make some fairly large assumptions from the get go, doesn't it? And if it is making assumptions that cannot be tested or proven, it has a fairly shaky foundation, right?
-------
*969 years = an arbitrary point of reference, to be sure. But what does science know about the number of observers and what they have recorded since the time human intelligence was capable of providing documentation?
To the best of my knowledge, pure uniformitarianism ("all geologic processes have taken place at the same rate...") has not been considered scientific for some time, if it ever was. Most of the big geological eras are accounted to have been initiated by comparatively instantaneous events, beyond that, I'd have said that all geological processes take place at variant rates, that only appear smooth from the 10,000 foot level.
Is there a "scientific" reason we must accept the proposition that all geologic processes have taken place at the same rate throughout all time? IOW, is it as plain as 1 + 1 = 2?
I'l take the liberty to interpret this question as "is the geological evidence of Deep Time pretty strong?". And, like evolutionary theory, I have to say it is very strong, because of independent confirming evidence from disparate fields of study. Science doesn't deal in "plain as 1 + 1 = 2", if by this, you mean anything approximating "proved true".
Not too compelling for science as it is practiced. If we restricted ourselves only to evidence that was continuously witnessed first-hand, as it occured, we'd still be doing alchemy and astrology for a living. We wouldn't have QM, and we certainly wouldn't have galactic astronomy. It is a common enough thing for creationists to proffer the notion that inductive evidence is inadequate gruel to draw scientific conclusions from, because induction is fallible. However, science doesn't have the problem with it you'd like to make a case for, because a) science doesn't mind being fallible, and b) knowing it is fallible, science works very hard on being critical about the evidence it looks at.
That is impossible. Based on what we know of human physiology, it is exceedingly unlike any human being could make it to 150, let alone 900.
Yet another example of where a literal reading of the bible contradicts not only science but ordinary common sense.