We see a lot of creatures today that would look suspiciously like transitional forms if all we had were bones to go by. Yet we know, by their existence, that they are not transitional because we can OBSERVE them in their natural environment, dressed in more than just their bones. So it really comes down to how accurate the evolutionary timeline really is. After all, if all of these animals weren't seperated by 100,000s to 1,000,000s of years, then the question doesn't really need to be answered.

You assume that there is no question to the accuracy of the dating methods. When they give an unexpected date, it must be contaminated. Much like coal. They still can't figure out why coal has 14C in it, and yet it can't have 14C in it because coal takes millions of years to form. So they'll do whatever it takes to find that evidence.

That's just one out of hundreds discrepencies with the dating methods.

I'm not going to type out an explanation. It would be redundant. Here are some alternative sources to consider. Just keep in mind, skepticism is healthy. There's no need to dismiss these outright, although skepticism of skepticism can be healthy too.

The first link is pretty interesting. Although maybe not as important as the other links.

http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v8i9n.htm
http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v8i8f.htm
http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i10f.htm
http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i3f.htm

I have a question for you. The morphology of the horse doesn't really fit in very well with other animals. I mean, in a more general slide show you've got arms, wings of creatures that all look fairly similar in design (bats, primates, humans, etc). Then horses pop out of nowhere with their strangely designed arms, and you get told its like that, just because that's what the horse needs. Well, if the slideshow of life is so important to you, then how come its not important when a creature doesn't fit this slideshow?