One sentence that throws the problem of evil out of the window.

[Edwardo Piet]

That demonstrates moral disagreement, not moral subjectivity.  Moral disagreement would (and does) exist regardless of whether or not morality is subjective or objective.  One has to acknowledge moral disagreement, ofc, but it's not a sufficient objection to moral objectivity.  

The moral objectivist simply replies that..yes, there are people who disagree with this moral statement x, and they are wrong...and here's why. 

The important difference is though that there is no way for two people who disagree about a moral act to find out who is right.

Whereas two people who disagree about the causes of thunder for example, an objective fact, could in theory determine who if either are correct.

If morality was objective as well then two people who disagree could in theory find out for sure who was correct. But they can't.

That's because "thunder" has an agreed upon definition. But if it didn't and we had no idea what people meant when they said "thunder" that wouldn't mean there weren't correct answers about thunder.

It's irrelevant if people aren't able to find out the answers when we're talking about objective answers in principle.

The point is that the fact people can't figure out answers to objective morality doesn't mean that the answers aren't there. If everyone sucked at chess that wouldn't mean there weren't better chess moves.