First, you did not give an exmaple of something created reflecting on the creator accurately. This burden of proof must be fulfilled or there is nothing to your point.
Knowing whether it fulfills a purpose or not requires knowledge of the future, which is ridiculous.
Again, you would require perfect knowledge of the future, which you do not have, so you cannot substantiate any claim that it is without purpose.
So, I cannot answer your question, but I can say with some confidence that without all those dinosaurs dying out, which was not exactly great for them, it worked out for the better.
Lastly, even if you can demonstrate that a certain event made life for humankind worse in some way, the fallacy in your reasoning would be that this even matters. If man is the reason all of existence exists, then it would, but without a man-centered universe I don't see how human evil impugns the creator. The universe is so large, it appears fairly obvious we are not the center of it.
How something behaves and interact with the world tells us about its nature. This is absurd to assume otherwise. A creator who watches his creation suffer says a lot about the nature of the creator. If you love something and if you have the power to do anything, there is no reason why that thing should be continue to suffer. If I have to the power to stop a person from dying in a fire and care about that person, I would save that person, unless some really good reason compelled me otherwise.
From this we can draw five possibilities:
1) The being is all-loving and wants to help, but lacks the ability to do so.
2) The being has the ability to do so but lacks the compassion to care, meaning it is not all loving.
3) The being has neither, and is not really nothing more than any other being.
4) Such a being does not exist at all.
5) The being has a compelling reason to allow evil.
The problem with 5) is this:
For what reason can evil possibly exist that an all-powerful being could not do through its own power?
The problem of evil is not an affirmative statement, it is a counter reply to an affirmative statement: that there exists an all-powerful and all-loving creator. The burden of proof does not fall on me to come up with a reason and an answer to my own question regarding five; it falls upon the person making the claim that there is a reason.
Even taken on face value, the person who affirms that something exists must exhibit it exists. The person who does not affirm its existence does not have to prove a negative, as it is impossible. Its like asking me to prove that there is an invisible tea cup circling the sun: yes, I can't prove that it doesn't exist, but I have no reason to believe it and a bunch of reasons not to.
On an aside, two of your claims cannot be held mutually exclusive: that God is anthrocentric towards humans and killed off the dinosaurs, and that God is not anthrocentric towards humans and does not care about us in the vast reaches of the universe.
Likewise, the second claim does not hold for an all-loving God, who loves everything equally.