Prediction; they will continue to find either extinct new forms we never knew about, or known forms, but they will not find any intermediate forms because it's clear they simply never existed.
We’ve already found a multitude of intermediate forms so it seems a bit bizarre to make a prediction that doesn’t even get off the starting block.
I think your problem is that you are picturing evolution in a very one dimensional way. Your objections that there is a lack of transitionals relative to “complete” forms in the fossil record would only carry any weight if evolution of a particular lineage always proceeded at a consistent rate while at each and every point on that line the representative species were equally abundant and widespread. In other words you are only looking at this from a purely temporal point of view when there is a spatial element as well.
Clearly, considering the special conditions required for fossilization coupled with the low liklehood of the specimen surviving erosional processes and actually being found we are more likely to find a particular fossil if the species was abundant and widely distributed.
Take your frequently stated example of the bat. Why do we only find fully formed bats you cry and no non flying ‘pre bats’ ? Well once evolution hits upon a highly advantageous formula (as would be the ability to fly, clearly) then it is likely that that first form would subsequently radiate into many bat species taking advantage of different niches, becoming widespread and abundant. However, the ‘pre bat’ may only have been a local population in a geographical limited area and/or adapted to a habitat not conducive to fossilisation like a forest. So logically, the “pre bat” is much less likely to be found as a fossil than the later “fully formed” bat of many species over a large range in different habitats. Still, very few of these will have been found as fossils but those found would appear to have no precursors due to statistical probability.
Clearly, examples of groups that are diverse, abundant and widespread are much more likely to be encountered than groups with opposite qualities ! Your wrong assumption is that everything through evolutionary history has been equally likely to be fossilised and found. That coupled with denial of the many intermediates that have been found, and denial of the robustness of our dating methods that shows the evolutionary pattern of first emergence of major groups in the fossil record allows you to remain in your creationist bubble.