The rules of the nature, by which i'm talking about physics, cause the emergence objective universal more principles. Those rules themselves are not subject to morals.

What is there to refute. Those numbers were made up.

Morality isn't about injunctions, it's about what is optimal. It's moral to not kill. Nature doesn't make absolute injunctions, what nature does is provide suboptimal outcomes including illness, death and extinction.

Lets pretend for a moment that your math is right. So what?

you got it.

ok so nature does have rules. the difference is we think about them more than other animals.

"Science measures that the universe is increasing. Logic tells us that the universe was smaller in the past. Science calculates that a some point the universe was a 'singularity'... a nothingness. Science believes in cause and effect. What cause formed the singularity and what cause exploded it? And where did all the material of the universe come from?" I don't know. I think, "i don't know" is a better answer than "I do know," as long as we have no testable hypothesis.

"how is it immoral for a dog to eat a dog? what moral is it violating?" The moral rule of don't eat things like you. i.e.The injunction against cannibalism.

"They live by the claw and fang. In nature, there are no rules. The biggest and baddest eat the lesser." No rules in nature? Nature has plenty of rules and if animals don't or can't fallow them they go extinct.

I never even mentioned it.