You give two things to consider: (1) is the argument on the Creation site (hereafter "C") a strawman and (2) what is the fallacy of C's argument?
Let's consider the fallacy first and then see why it is a Strawman. Taking C's argument at face value, C's argument is a false analogy.
Consider first, the general structure of C's argument:
- Fairy tales don't occur in the real-world.
- Evolution is a fairy tale cloaked in science-talk.
- Thus, evolution is not a real-world process.
That is, fairy tales are easy to attack/reject as occurring in the real world. So, if evolution is sufficiently like fairy tales, then we can similarly attack/reject evolution.
The next question is then: what does C take to be the crux of the analogy between evolution and fairy tales, and is this analogy cogent? The crux of C's analogy likens the princess kissing the frog with time for evolution in the following way:
- In fairy tales, kissing a frog is sufficient (in a causal sense) for the frog becoming a prince.
- In evolution, time is sufficient (in a causal sense) for speciation (in their example, humans evolving from frogs).
(1) is typically true and (2) is always false: other things are required for speciation such as mutations of genes, selective pressures in an environment, etc. That is, the "magic" of fairy tales is limited to, in the princess example, turning a frog human via a kiss from a princess, whereas the "magic" of speciation is not limited to time. Thus, C's argument is a false analogy.
Now, is it a Strawman? According to your link, a Strawman is when
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
As we saw, C grossly misrepresented what is required for speciation (which is what I assume they mean by "evolution" as their example talks about humans evolving from frogs). Thus, C's argument is a Strawman.
 I thought I should include the "Taking C's argument..." qualification given Benjamin's comments below.
 MoziburUllah noted another disanalogy below, namely that kissing is a teleological act and evolution isn't. The princess intended for the frog to turn into a prince, evolution did not intend to "produce" humans. But, this is not the disanalogy C's argument is based on.