I think you are correct to say that a word cannot constitute an argument. This wasnt what I meant: rather, I meant that words can have presuppositions behind them, and the presuppositions can be what is incoherent. Dispose of the presupposition and you dispose of the word too (or at any rate that particular sense of the word).

I certainly have no cast-iron knowledge of your own presuppositions. Nor any statistical evidence that colloquial non-technical use of ‘primitive’ always means bad-because-old/bad-in-derogatory-context. The truth is, I am unable to envisage any second meaning for the word colloquially: this is the one and only meaning I have heard assigned to it colloquially. Note that I’m talking about colloquial contexts here, and that those colloquial contexts tend invariably to be derogatory (again: I cant prove this latter point).
Ppl can suggest alternative colloquial meanings – but the alternatives tend to be indistinguishable from bad-because-old, given that they include words like ‘crude’, which itself combines the ideas of ‘bad’ and ‘old’. So – once again – it’s a process of elimination.

I suppose the singleness of the word is what shows the unitariness of its meaning. Otherwise it wouldnt be one word at all.

If you actually believe this (and I don’t think you do – you’re just flailing) then you fail to grasp the complexities of language, with its rich lexicon of nuance and connotation. You do not “assume unitary meaning”, even if you claim to. Few if any words have a single meaning, and each time a word is used it carries with it all possible meanings in that context. That’s why some words are more apt than others. To try to sift through all those meanings to find the “one” that you imagine the author meant is a preposterous idea. No wonder you ducked out of trying to prove your rule of unification. 1 word = 1 meaning is an incredibly facile concept.
But you weren’t just arguing that “primitive” could only contain one meaning at a time. You were actually trying to claim that this adjective constituted an incoherent argument (it is old, therefore it is bad) – which is even more preposterous. Dictionaries also list colloq meanings – find a dictionary which defines the word (any word in fact) as an incoherent argument please, or just admit you are talking bollocks.
I am glad that you finally acknowledge that I do not think “new/fashionable is always best”, and note the lack of apology (no matter – it’s too late now anyway). However, I must point out that I was not adopting the presuppositions of “other less thinking people”.
I used the word “primitive” fully aware of its meanings and its connotations, and I stand by my description of the world views of Reid, Beyer, and Green as such.

So yes, I am and always have been sure that you dont think Christianity is ‘bad because old’. But ‘primitive’ is a word often used in what one might call slagging-off contexts by less-than-thoughtful people; while adopting their style you may have simultaneously adopted their terminology without doing a full coherence-check. Had you done one, you might have realised you were saying something you didnt actually believe.
Which in fact is what I endeavour to show in many of my rejoinders, and why I emphasise presuppositions. On this occasion the presuppositions were not yours but (on my hypothesis) those of a rather less thinking group of people whose terminology (and, thereby, whose presuppositions as well) you were adopting in a less-than-100%-critical way.
If we admit (as we must) that all worldviews but one must be at least partly false, and we further admit (as we must) that all worldviews engender and/or espouse particular pet slogans/words, then it follows that there must be an awful lot of incoherent pet slogans/words around. We should therefore expect to find them all over the place, and it is not in the least surprising when they crop up.

Hi Monitor:
So you agree that the word ‘primitive’ can encompass both ‘bad’ and ‘old’? Where would one find a definition that held the ‘bad’ and the ‘old’ in disjunction or even conjunction / adjacency, as opposed to actual unitary conceptual connection?

Re: the bleeding example: ‘primitive’ is either being used in a technical way or being used in a colloquial way. If in a technical way, then the sense ‘bad’ is not present in this particular word. If in a colloquial way (e.g. in the context of scorning it, as in the Beyer case), then the ‘badness’ is taken to be partly attributable to the ‘oldness’.