That creation.com page makes several bad assumptions.
First is that the "evolutionary gaps" they point out are meaningful. For example, they state that only fragmentary fossils have been found of Epihippus, and that those fossils resemble those of earlier species such as Orohippus and Eohippus. However, this does not in any way suggest that there is an evolutionary gap; it simply means we have incomplete information, which often happens in science. It may turn out that scientists discover that the Epihippus fossils are actually those of earlier species, yet this will in no way contradict the 'macro'-evolutionary development of hyracotherid species, because the other various species have been clearly identified as different. In short, an evolutionary gap just means we have less than complete information, and cannot justify discarding evolutionary theory, never mind substituting "created kinds" for it (especially since they provide no real evidence for those "created kinds"; instead, they act as if pointing out problems with evolutionary theory means their favored alternative is correct).
Second, their statement that the monophyly of Hyracotherium has been challenged is true. This is common in science; conclusions are challenged all the time. Yet that in no way justifies discarding the overall theoretical framework. It simply means that they are making more specific and accurate classifications, and does not in any way validate "created kinds". Indeed, it actually further supports evolutionary theory, as it is not believable that every horse precursor existed in a straight line of descent with no divergence whatsoever.
Third, their statement that early horses have been preserved in the same strata as later horses is probably true. However, that does not negate evolutionary theory, as there is no reason to conclude that all members of early horse species had died out by the time that later ones had evolved. In fact, drawing that conclusion is more than a little absurd; it is the equivalent of arguing that a person's family tree consists of a straight line rather than a tree with many, many branches. It would not be reasonable to claim that your cousins could not be related to you simply because you and they lived during the same time, and so it is not reasonable to claim that horse precursors could not have lived at the same time as other horse precursors which preceded them.
Fourth, they make the standard argument about "transitional forms", specifically with horse teeth (and whether they ate leaves or grass). However, they give no reason to conclude that these different teeth must have been designed, instead limiting themselves to pointing out that there do not seem to be transitional forms between the two. But why does there need to have been? There is no reason to conclude that horses transitioned from eating leaves to eating grass; both of these different teeth could have easily diverged from an earlier, more generalized tooth. All it would have taken then is for the grass-eating horses to have done better than the leaf-eating ones, causing the leaf-eating ones to slowly die out.
Therefore, their conclusion (that these horse ancestors were completely unrelated animals and that there was therefore no horse evolution) is very poorly supported and does not supplant evolutionary theory despite their efforts to claim otherwise.