Fight over dinosaur fossils comes down to what’s a mineral

Associated Press ^ | November 16, 2018 | Amy Beth Hanson

[Mr Rogers]

“Yes, the dinosaur bones are COMPOSED of minerals, but no, their value is not the value of the MINERALS, but of their form.”

Oh. Like diamonds.

[dangus]

>> “Yes, the dinosaur bones are COMPOSED of minerals, but no, their value is not the value of the MINERALS, but of their form.” <<

>> Oh. Like diamonds. <<

If you have any worthless, uncut diamonds on your hands, please send them to me. I’ll gladly send you postage and my address.

(Dinosaur fossils are typically silica, calcite, etc. — utterly worthless minerals.)

[Bernard Marx]

From a technical point of view the answer to the question seems easy. Here's the difference between a mineral and a rock:

"A mineral is a naturally occurring, inorganic solid with a definite chemical composition and a crystalline structure formed by geological processes. A rock is an aggregate of one or more minerals whereas a rock may also include organic remains and mineraloids. Some rocks are predominantly composed of just one mineral."

Rocks like silicified dinosaur bone, are composed of several minerals. But for that matter, unfossilized bones are made of minerals too. Seems to me that "mineral" wins.