If God created all of us and was a perfect designer, why would 99.9% of species become extinct?

Question

Why would he create whole species just to kill them off later?

Answer 1

Surely you have to know that extinction doesn't prove anythig about God.Judging from the tone of this question you've been "educated " in the public school system. I hope you will read this whole answer and give it some thought. May the Holy Spirit enlighten.

Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould put it this way"Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." In other words, Throughout the geologic layers, which supposedly formed over eons - the various kinds of fossils remain essentially unchanged in appearance.They show no evolution over long ages. Paleontologists call this "stasis."
Wouldn't a fossil record, showing all animals complete when first seen, is what we'd expect if God created them whole, just as the Bible says?
Austin H. Clark, the eminent zoologist of the Smithsonian Institution, was no creationist but he declared:
"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediates between the major groups of phyla.
This can only mean one thing. There can only be one interpertation of thisentire lack of any intermediates between the major groups of animals - as for instance betweenbackboned animals or vertebrates , the echinoderms, the mollusks and the arthropods
If we are willing to accept the facts we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or in other words that these major groups have from the very first, borne the same relation to each other that they have today."
.British science writer Frances Hitchens wrote" On the face of it, then, the prime function of the genetic system would seem to be to resist change ; to to perpetuate the species in a minimally adapted form in response to altered conditions, and if at all possibe to get things back to normal. The role of natural selection is usually a negative one : to destroy the few mutant individuals that threaten the stability of the soecies.
Why aren't fish today, growing little arms and legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers?Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
Evolution Is not visible in the past, via the fossil record. It is not visible in the present, whether we consider an organism as a whole, or on the microscopic planes of biochemistry and molecular biology,where, as we have seen, the theory faces numerous difficulties. In short, evolution is just not visible. Science is supposed to be based on observation.
L. Harrison Matthews,long director of the London Zoological society noted in 1971:"Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parrallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither up to the present, has been capable of proof.
Norman MacBeth wrote in American Biology Teacher:
"Darwinism has failed in practice. The whole aim and purpose in Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is to construct reliable phylogenies(genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed...Darwinism is not science."
Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup declared in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:
I suppose nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology;for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar" Darwinism" vocabulary -- "adaptation","selection pressure","natural selection", etc.--thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we will be able to make real progress in the understanding of evolution.
As natural selection's significance crumbles, the possibility of God, creation and design is again making a wedge in scientific circles. In a 1998 cover story entitled"Science Finds God" Newsweek noted:
"The achievments of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing # of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God...According to a study released last year, 40% of American scientists believe in a personal God---not only an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a diety to whom they can pray."
Author David Raphael Klein may have said it best:
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camoflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron, and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident-- such a personbelieves in a miracle far more astonishing than any in the Bible."

Answer 2

There is a difference between completeness and perfection. Imperfection allows room for completeness. For example, if a woman wanted to be the perfect mother and wife, that would take all her energy. Such perfection would be a very demanding and time consuming. If she is happy being somewhat imperfect, it saves her a lot of time, so she can become more complete doing other things. She will also be more fun to those around her, not having to control the environment to simplify the demands of perfection. God being ... well God ... seeks completeness instead of perfection. In fact part of the meaning of the word "holy" is complete!

Answer 3

Fancier: "Many of those so called "missing links" are really fully form creatures." All of them are. Every creature that has ever lived and reproduced has been a fully formed creature. Your desire for a half-something half-something else is a result of your ignorance about how evolution works, and is nothing more than a popular creationist straw man. "Many of those "missing links" were found only in fragments like just a piece of a skull or a tooth and not a complete creature and somehow scientists came up with these creatures even though they had no idea what creature it even was." Which fossils are you referencing specifically? What are your problems with the methods used in evaluating them and the conclusions reached? "Once they discovered a tooth that they said was a humanlike creature only it later turned out to belong to a pig." And? There have been plenty of faked fossils, including some that were purported to be human ancestors. They were all found out by comparison with the plethora of real human ancestor fossils by scientists, not creationists with their fingers in their ears screaming that it wasn't real.

Answer 4

That is the handiwork of men. More and more species become extinct and endangered as man invades more and more of their habitats. Some species are very fragile, and their survival is totally reliant on their habitat being undisturbed. Just another shining example of man taking what he wants with no concern for anything but himself. I noticed how you were going to lay that off on God. Imagine that.

Answer 5

People are responsible for the killing off of different species, not God. He must be so disappointed in us.

God Bless.

Answer 6

I've been wondering the same thing about killing off people.
That was the theme for Jurassic Park, wasn't it Mike?

Answer 7

Soon you also will be extinct so maybe you should have science redesign you and make you live for ever and ever and ever...amen.

Answer 8

Well, I really don't know, but maybe their design became outdated

Answer 9

Because he's about as perfect a designer as W is a president - or because he doesn't exist!

Answer 10

Ever heard of unintelligent design.