Does light have color

Thanks for that response Con. I affirm that light has colors, because light is comprised of colors that can be separated by shining white light through a prism. If a prism separates these colors from light, then light MUST have colors; light is a source of colors. If we agree that the visible light spectrum can be separated into different wavelengths, then we must agree that these wavelengths make up light. To me, as much as a wavelength of light equaling 740 nm is a part of light, so is the color red. In fact, there is no red without a light wavelength in the range of 740 nm. Con, can there be a wavelength of light in the range of 740 nm without the color red? If so, please demonstrate what a real 740 nm wavelength of light looks like without the color red. This, to me, affirms that visible light is composed of colors. Still, Con claims: "Newton clearly states that light itself is not coloured." My response: Ok, Con. If we're all wrong, can you explain what dispersion is? Seriously, Con, how can you explain dispersion WITHOUT conceding that light has colors? For those who may not know what dispersion is dispersion - the separation of white light into colors. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Dispersion is considered a fact of physics, and you can read about it at the Physics Classroom. http://www.physicsclassroom.com... However, Con continues: "Light itself is not coloured...this sentiment is followed by numerous physicists such as Galileo, Boyle, Descartes, Young, Maxwell and Helmholtz." My response: I don't care what scientists SAY, I care about what scientists SHOW, and do you know what Newton showed? "Light shining through a prism will be separated into its different wavelengths and will thus show the various colors that visible light is comprised of." http://www.physicsclassroom.com... So, when Con lists "Galileo, Boyle, Descartes, Young, Maxwell and Helmholtz" as reasons in and of themselves to reject light containing colors, one can dismiss it as an appeal to authority. Con is just listing scientists for their celebrity rather than demonstrating his claim. I found it interesting that Con quoted Newton, seeing as newton discovered dispersion. Con quotes Newton: "The homogeneal light and rays...I call rubrifick or red-making...yellow-making, green-making, blue-making, violet-making" My response: While I don't care what scientists merely say, it seems that Newton is explaining that light has colors. By saying that light makes colors, Newton is describing light containing colors. Does a factory have cars? Does a heart have blood? Does a plant have oxygen? Does the sun have light? If an entity makes particular things, it therefore has those particular things. Newton is saying that light makes colors. So, light has colors. Con, why should we believe that light doesn't have color if... 1. there is no red without wavelengths of light in the 740 nm range and there are no wavelengths of light in the 740 nm range without red, 2. dispersion is a fact of physics, 3. and entities that make things, by definition, have those things they produce, so the fact that light makes color means that light has color? Yes, that's all one question. Con?