False predictions are argued posteriori where a cause isn't established as the cause because it is unknown. A true prediction means it is unavoidable that cause X would create effect P.
It is argued the fossils and the rocks were laid down over many eons by compaction, posteriori, (after the fact). That is to say, first the fossils were found, then people reasoned that the cause was slow, uniform compaction. This isn't the correct prediction because nobody can actually know that this would be the cause and it would seem that many of the evidences of fossils contradict this view and that catastrophic burial would be expected rather than things dying then being fossilised which makes less sense, as the more time to rot the less chances of preservation. Because it is possible slow compaction wouldn't create this record but it isn't possible a flood could NOT, logically the record is correctly predicted for a flood, not eons. (it is not actually possible to have a world scale flood not leave such evidence in the earth's crust given it's scale so the fossil order is actually a red-herring )
The fossil record seems to be a record of things buried while in the act of living. The fossils found in asphyxiation position, giving birth, eating, attacking prey, still digesting, or just being exquisitely preserved which fast burial is conducive to, but slow compaction is conducive to rotting. It makes sense to say they were buried while alive. Some evolutionists also now argue neo-catastrophe, that the record is uniform being punctuated by catastrophe.
So we can conclude that;
1. Even evolutionists admit a lot of the evidence fits with sudden catastrophe. (so it's a contradiction to say it can't be the flood catastrophe and a tacit admission that in fact such evidence was always consistent with the flood)
2. Catastrophic burial would correctly predict fossils preserved in the act of living
3. A correct prediction for a biblical flood would be organisms of every phyla evidenced as being killed by the flood, to be found represented in the fossils.
CONCLUSION: I think in this day and age, it is now impossible to pretend the fossil record would not be expected from a flood. The correct prediction is that we would get such a vast hydraulic action sweeping and scouring every surface and dumping wet sediments everywhere, and we would expect all lifeforms to be preserved as fossils for the remnant that were not obliterated or rotted away when drowned.
The correct prediction is actually that a flood would cause such a record, and I think it was a mistake of the Victorian era we have inherited, to say that somehow such evidence of catastrophe is conducive to vast eons of time. That is a false prediction.
Think about it, to say, "that isn't what you would expect from a flood, you would expect no rock record and no fossils and you wouldn't expect any sediment being dumped." Okay, what would you expect? One flat crust of the earth with no history of any flood disturbing the ground? That's like saying if you find your fishbowl full of hardened cement with the fish hardened inside, that dumping wet cement on them would not cause this.
Flume experiments have shown this happens under hydraulic action, and we know that this would cause fossils to be preserved because to say it would be conducive to fossilisation is like saying 2 add 2 will give us 4. I fail to see how you can escape that logically these things should follow had a flood occurred. It is impossible that such a world scale flood would not scour the earth and dump sediment and it is impossible that there would not be a portion of fossils caused by it, preserved in excellent condition. What else would follow? Please explain what else would follow.
Because a flood would have to dredge up/scour, a lot of stuff, and that "stuff" has to go somewhere, so are you saying that a flood would transport all of that sediment it raked up, to the moon via Darwinian magic? What happened to the cement when it was dumped on your fish bowl? Are you saying there wouldn't be any cement if wet cement was dumped on your fish and your fish wouldn't be inside it? Please tell me you know that during mud flows and flows from volcanoes, even that is enough to create rock. And if such small scale things can cause flows that later harden, how much more stuff can a world scale flood rake up?
Please answer these questions.