One could just as easily argue that any methodology that has been found to be off by 100% is unreliable.
Suppose that the rocks were found to be only 1 million years old, would you use the same argument, viz, that therefore the Creation timeline is wrong - even though the methodology used to discredit it was found to be off by 19,900%?
All dating techniques other than Carbon 14 which can be historically validated necessarily employ built-in assumptions which - in this case - have already been shown to be wildly inaccurate.
Even C14 dating, the principle of which is valid, is accurate only to the degree that the percentage of C14 vs total carbon has been constant or nearly so over epochal periods of time. Not an unreasonable assumption, but hardly unquestionable. A water canopy cutting the amount of ionizing solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth might render the starting percentage much lower, thus implying much older remains when tested. Plus, the Bible never says to interpret creative “days” as literal solar earth days, so my understanding of the Bible is not that it says the universe sprang into being abruptly in 4000 BCE. The Bible uses the word “day” with many interpretations as we do today. (see, there’s a contemporary non-literal use right there!)
If they are only 1 million years old, then virtually all of the samples are contaminated with non-radiogenic lead sufficient to alter their apparent age by hundreds of orders of magnitude.