There are so many dating methods and they are all used to confirm (or not) the validity of the other methods...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_methodologies_in_archaeology?wprov=sfla1
I'm quite sure everyone who shouts something about carbon dating rocks to millions of years old shows his own lack of knowledge on that subject, and is automatically disqualified on the topic. Especially when they try to dismiss just a single method with no valid theory or evidence on why that method is flawed, or how the other methods are wrong as well.
Why do I say that? Carbon dating is used on organic materials (not rocks) up to 60.000 (not millions) years old. If you can't get these basic facts correct, your understanding of the topic is failing big time.
(Look up the Dunning-Kruger effect)
Guess what: thousands of scientists eager to make a breakthrough discovery by proving existing methods wrong work their whole lives on refining these methods. They can be wrong, sure. But what is more likely: after years of research and verification by other researchers the methods they come up with somewhat work? Or you and me, without any knowledge, truly know the methods wrong from behind our kitchen table?