As usual, long on verbiage, short on evidence for anything.

Out of a full refutation of the whole site you linked to, the best you can do is pick semantically about whether or not teeth are bones. The points you were trying to make above were refuted there too, with links, but let's conventiently ignore those, right?

The geologist in the second link does indeed talk about the macrofossils. He says they are probable evidence of reworking. There is a link at the bottom of that page to another site where there are pictures of reworked fossils and the area in which they were found.

Let's see now. We know that fossils exist in rock. We know that rock gets eroded. Ergo, when fossil-bearing rock is eroded, the fossils are dislodged and wherever they go, be it on the ground or in a lake or something else, they are no longer in situ. It's impossible to claim that this doesn't happen because it would be akin to claiming that erosion doesn't happen. So how do we determine whether we are looking at a reworked fossil? I suggest clicking on the link from that page. You also look at where the vast majority of fossils of that type are found. If it's an anomaly, it's a good candidate for being a reworked fossil, though other possibilities need to be looked at too, such as misidentification (of course scientists aren't perfect).

Now if you'd like to make some points of your own, please do, and include some evidence. You could address, for example, the questions I put to you above. Why do we not find dinosaur and human fossils together? Why does neither type of fossil appear mixed in with trilobites? This sorting has been solidly documented for well over a hundred years. Quibbling about a few fossils here and there that scientists aren't sure about does not address this, it's skirting the issue.