Exactly right, and @christianapologist not only offered inaccurate definitions, which he then misapplied, he made strident sweeping claims he never attempted to evidence, even after being asked to do so repeatedly.
Most pointedly he failed to offer even a single example of absolute or objective morality. The one attempt he made was the act of torturing a child, and when it was explained that his own bible depicted the deity he believes to be real doing just that, of course he immediately moved the goal posts with a special pleading fallacy, further suggesting he doesn’t understand what objective or absolute morality means, which is odd as several posters had explained it precisely to him, as you just did of course.
I’ve re-read the exchange several times, and it is perfectly clear his arguments are circular, and constantly shift between contradictory claims, suggesting again he doesn’t have a reasonable grasp of moral complexity, or how moral choices can only be based on a subjective view of what is and is not moral. Good and bad are subjective perceptions, and the best we can hope for is a broad consensus, but they would remain subjective of course, and like so many people who try to argue that morality is objective, he wrongly conflated a moral consensus (even a universal one) with objective morality, but of course they are not the same, and these are argumentum ad populum fallacies.