Does light have color

Thanks Con. Yeah, I don't care what scientists SAY, I care what they can SHOW. So Con can list every scientist in the world's opinion on whether or not light has color, and it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans, because if an idea can't be demonstrated, then how many qualified people saying it is an appeal to authority/population. Regardless, Con has only asserted that all of these scientist believe this to be the case, but other than Newton, Con has not shown this in his sources nor has con SHOWN that light does not have colors...Con's just playing the "this guy said this" game. What I'm saying is, rather than listen to the meteorologists, look at the Doppler radar yourself. Con is telling us that certain meteorologists claim that tomorrow will be a clear sunny day, but the Doppler radar is showing massive storm formations. In this case, the Doppler radar is the visible light spectrum, and it shows that it in fact contains colors. I ask anyone to find me a diagram of the visible light spectrum that does not indicate visible light being comprised of colors. I also pointed out that dispersion, which is the separating of white light into colors, is in contrast with Con. To further add to this Newton not only said, but SHOWED that "it is also evident, that the whiteness of the Sun's Light is compounded of all the Colours" http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk... Despite ALL of the diagrams that one can find on visible light, despite the fact of dispersion, and despite Newton's demonstration that white light is composed of all of the colors, Con still thinks light has not color. Con says: "When science says the prism breaks white light into its various colors they are speaking conveniently. What they mean is that light which appears white, passes through a prism, it is split into light that appears red or appears blue, etc." My response: Con, find me a definition of dispersion, the discovery newton SHOWED to be true, that mentions that the light only "appears" to be separated into colors. Also, how does Con determine when scientist mean to say "appear" rather than what's actually stated? Maybe light just "appears" to have wavelengths, and the visible light spectrum is just one giant "convenient" way to talk about wavelengths that light doesn't have. How can Con tell when scientists are being convenient/literal? Con continues: "[Pro] is mistaken about the neccesity of wavelength to see color. When we dream, we see blue skies, green grass and red cars. Where do those wavelengths come from?" My response: Dreams, unlike wavelengths, are hallucinations. Just like if I were to dream that president Obama is cleaning my bathroom, it's not actually him, he's not actually cleaning, and he's not actually in my bathroom. It's not actually Obama in my dream, because Obama's actual body isn't really there. So if you dream of red, it's not actually red, because the actual wavelengths aren't there and you're merely recalling a memory of viewing the wavelength of light, much like I may be recalling an image of Obama seen on TV or something. To sum it up. Con has this idea that colors only exist as sensations. While I agree that our sensations are necessary to detect wavelengths of light, it doesn't change the fact that to see real color, one must be able to see wavelengths of light. Con, I'll give you another chance to demonstrate that there could be a wavelength of light at 740 nm that isn't red and, conversely, that there could be red without a wavelength of light at 740 nm. Light is composed of colors, thanks to the dispersion of the visible light spectrum.