You really don't get it do you? When we apply uniformitarian logic (which you wrongly accused us of adhering to), where it is inconvenient, suddenly the uniformitarians become very aware of the potential for events and possible occurrences that could defy current measurements. However, where current measurements bode well for the desired outcomes and pronouncements, plausible concepts that could defy current verifiable measurements must be scoffed at as indemonstrable. It's one of the most obvious cases of special pleading when the result is produced.
If you apply uniformitarian logic where it doesn't apply something should be said. Why would anyone need to apply such logic where it isn't needed??? Read the wikipedia entry on tidal acceleration and you'll understand why that's the case here.