From an article on the carniverous nature and suffering of animals.
Please read the parts I'm quoting, there is good reason for it all that will be clear at the end:
Would it be consistent for the God who inspired the writing of Isaiah 11 and 65 to use millions of years of carnivorous activity as a method of creation, and then declare it to be ‘very good’?
Actually, these passages indicate very specifically that carnivorous activity is an evil — that is, a physical rather than a moral evil.
The Hebrew word translated ‘hurt’ in the KJV of Isaiah 11:9 and 65:25 is raa.
Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the most frequent translation of this word is ‘do evil’.
Other translations include ‘afflict’ and ‘do wickedly’.
It is related to ra, the usual word for ‘evil’ in the Old Testament—and that includes both moral and physical evil.
As for the word translated ‘destroy’ in the KJV in Isaiah 11:9 and 65:25 (shachath), the core meaning is ‘mar’ or ‘corrupt’...
Conclusion
Young-earth creationists believe that the biblical account of creation is incompatible with an earth history of billions of years.
One reason is that if the fossil record represents millions of years of Earth history, it has to be said that God’s method of creation was both cruel and wasteful.
It was a long, drawn-out process of violence and carnage, involving the suffering and death of billions of animals over millions of years. The scriptures we have looked at make it quite clear that this could not have been the method God used in creating what he pronounced to be a ‘very good’ creation."
http://creation.mobi/the-carnivorous-nature-and-suffering-of-animals.....
The logic that this man employs in his article is interesting, and relevant to the discussion.
He acknowledges that a fossil record representing millions of years of suffering and extinction in a world before the 'Fall' occurred, along with his belief that it was all designed by God,
could only lead him to the conclusion that God is cruel and wasteful. He also points out that God's creation could not have been declared to be 'very good', as the Bible states, if it had involved so much needless violence, suffering and death.
Plenty of thought has gone into this article, that much is clear.
At the end though, he still clings to his belief that the earth, as well as the life on it, is merely thousands of years old. (He is a young-earth creationist).
