The Premise of Duality is flawed

Concurrences:1) "1) In the words of Pro, "Cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat."The argument is fallacious."We define a fallacy as a mistaken belief, esp. one based on unsound argument.Failing to provide an explanation does NOT lead to that."what causes a body to become cold(the verb" is cold(the noun)."Let us use winter and summer as an example.It is all about the tilt of the Earth's axis. Many people believe that the temperature changes because the Earth is closer to the sun in summer and farther from the sun in winter. In fact, the Earth is farthest from the sun in July and is closest to the sun in January!During the summer, the sun's rays hit the Earth at a steep angle. The light does not spread out as much, thus increasing the amount of energy hitting any given spot. Also, the long daylight hours allow the Earth plenty of time to reach warm temperatures.During the winter, the sun's rays hit the Earth at a shallow angle. These rays are more spread out, which minimizes the amount of energy that hits any given spot. Also, the long nights and short days prevent the Earth from warming up. Thus, we have winter!"it's that heat and cold are co-existent and co-eternal, thus validating the premise of duality."No. Cold is in reality the absence of heat."Mr. Pro, isn't heat ALSO just a word created to describe how we feel if we have no cold?"Nopers.Mr. Science says that the temperature of an object is the measure of the heat energy that it contains. More energy equals a higher temperature; less energy equals a lower one. When heat is added or subtracted it causes changes in the physical properties of objects like thermometers, asphalt, bread baking in the oven, or the tip of your tongue. ï¿½€""Hotï¿½€ï¿½ and evenï¿½€""warmï¿½€ï¿½ are real and measurable quantities.Cold, on the other hand, does not exist. There is no such thing as ï¿½€""coldï¿½€ï¿½. When you touch a piece of ice with your bare hand, the sensation that you feel is not the presence of ï¿½€""coldï¿½€ï¿½, it is the subtraction of heat. The more rapidly you withdraw heat the more ï¿½€""coldï¿½€ï¿½ it feels. The ice has such little heat compared to your body that the heat rushes from your hand to balance things out. Your hand continues to lose heat rapidly until the ice is melted, then and only then can your hand warm back up. The sensation that you feel in your hand, through your brain, is that of heat being sucked from your body. Your brain detects this and calls it ï¿½€""coldï¿½€ï¿½but in reality it is simply the profound lack of heat. Matter is composed of atoms, and atoms are aquiver with energy. There is a broad spectrum of temperatures that range from absolute zero (where all restless movement in the atom ceases) to a gazillion bazillion degrees where even atoms fly apart into their constituent pieces. But nowhere on that temperature scale does ï¿½€""coldï¿½€ï¿½ exist, even at absolute zero. Absolute zero isnï¿½€™t really cold, it is simply zero heat.So next time the olï¿½€™ north wind blows through the crack under your door and causes your candle to flicker, donï¿½€™t shiver and say ï¿½€""whoa, itï¿½€™s getting coldï¿½€ï¿½. Instead, say ï¿½€""wow, itï¿½€™s really getting unwarm quicklyï¿½€ï¿½, and grab yourself another sweater to trap the heat.2) ScienceYou use the Big Bang theory to defend your position.The Big Bang theory is not true.There are two different types of when stars end. When the little stars die, it"s just like a small poof. They just turn into a planetary nebula. But the big ones, above 1.4 solar masses, blow up in one giant explosion, a supernova. What it does, is, in larger stars there is a larger mass, and it can fuse higher elements because it"s more dense.So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off.So in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it"s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, I don"t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn"t there have to be some sort of carbon?Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn"t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn"t gonna happen.Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We"d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.Also, that was the absence of light.Christianity:God did not create light to complement darkness. It was simply the absence of the presence of light. So, he decided to do so.The rest are traditional stories, esp. them concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. However, both fail to explain your notion of "darkness" and light and how both are co-existent. " both light as well as darkness must exist for the validity of either." How exactly does darkness validate light? There is only light. No darkness. Either light is present, or absent. "one cannot study different colours if there is no darkness to dilute its degree in white light. False. Let us use Newton's prism again to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. Each is measurable except for black. For measurements of various colors, more light is transmitted. And for some, it is not. Oh, and for some, it is subtracted. "Not true at all. It can only illuminate the area which it is incident upon. The rest of the world is still dark. This statement has no value whatsoever." False. In fact, I have derived this argument from: http://petapixel.com... "Consider a space of area "A", which is initially dark. Let light illuminate an area "B". The area which remains dark is "C". By simple mathematics, C = A - B." If all areas are seperated, how would other areas be illuminated? Not at all relevant to my statement. A simple ray of light present in ONE area can illuminate it. Also, the absence of light can not subtract light from an illuminated area. "The statement is incomplete. One cannot measure darkness in the absence of light. Can you measure light if there is no darkness? Nope." This argument presented above is not substantiated. Therefore, it will remain uncontested except for the fact that there is no sufficient justification. "Mr. Pro, that if this were the case, all we would ever see is WHITE." Incorrect. Either light is present, or absent. "Darkness is as real as light. It is the embodiment of all we DON'T see. We can study light BECAUSE there is darkness to complement it. Once again, DUALITY is prevalent." No. Like said, it is not measurable. Darkness does not complement light. Either light is transmitted or the presence of light is absent. That is, why it is measurable. As opposed to "darkness", it remains one color. We can not make dark any darker. And if it were brighter, it would no longer be black.