I don't think this is a biblical timeline. It does use the word 'creation' a fair bit which doesn't fit current scientific thinking.
Firstly it's important to note that the scientific opinion of the history of the universe is not finalised and probably never will be, it merely represents the best bet we can make with our current knowledge. It might get closer to the truth in the future, but the nature of truth in the theory of science is a whole other discussion that is too long to go into here.
The closest equivalent in the Bible is the parable using a week to represent the creation of everything. To be fair it's probably a useful construct to think of the history of the universe in a simpler way that is easy for the human mind to comprehend. I personally can't picture what 13 billion years looks like, but a week is easy to comprehend. Except that if the history of the universe were a week then humans wouldn't have been created on the 6th day, it's more like the last microsecond that we've been around. But again, thinking of a week as being a long time and humans as only being around very recently is a good way to think about it. However there is even contradiction between genesis 1 & 2 regarding exactly when man was created.
In the timeline you've posted, the units for the first few are wrong, it wasn't seconds it was nanoseconds or even smaller. Physicists use the concept of Planck time, which more closely represents the time scale those events took place in.
[Edit] The units are fine, as noted by oddThinking the units are 10^-43 which is not an error.[/Edit]
Again, the prevailing scientific opinion is based on the majority consensus of physicists and cosmologists using extremely complex models to try to extrapolate back in time to estimate the timeline. You could read about the "red shift" to learn why scientists know the universe is expanding and how we estimate the age of the universe and the timing of the big bang (or the big bounce if you are one of the scientists that think the big bang wasn't the beginning). You could spend years studying string theory or M theory in all its variations and unifying theories that still don't explain how all the 4 forces came from a single force if indeed that is what happened.
Back to the religion angle. I had an interesting lecturer in chemistry once, who neatly explained a link between the metaphorical notion of creationism and the idea of causality in science, specifically the second law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law relates to the idea of entropy and the "arrow of time" but could be explained simply as being about cause and effect.
[Edit] The second law of thermodynamics is very related to cause and effect; due to the always increasing entropy of a closed system the law suggests an end to the universe and necessarily implies a begininning to the universe. This is well established in the scientific literature
"Entropic Creation : Religious Contexts of Thermodynamics and Cosmology Kragh, Heige S. p279 Ashgate Publishing Group 2008"
"Entropy Demystified : The Second Law Reduced to Plain Common Sense Ben-Naim, Arieh, 2007 p46 - chapter 2.4.2 Conditional probability and cause and effect'"
If the effect is the big bang and expansion and consequent evolution of the universe, then what is the cause? Perhaps a creator? Science can't and does not attempt to disprove that. Scientists don't know and shouldn't speculate on that as scientists because it is pure conjecture. Not that hypothesising is bad, but it is pointless when you can't do the experiments or research. There is no means for us to peer back before the big bang with present knowledge, so that leaves that explanation neatly in the realm of religion, and personally I don't see any conflict of interest in 'believing' that or even the basic premise of science and religion coexisting.
That is why Dawkins and the late Hitchens are considered extreme, not that they aren't brilliant, but their position of Atheism is too extreme, how could they know for sure? Agnostic is then a more reasonable position to take, but that discussion is beyond this answer.
On the other hand, the use of the word 'Creation' in the timeline above is something that the pushers of intelligent design might use to try and more closely integrate religious gospel with pseudo-scientific explanations. A reasonable scientific melding of religion and the big back might come from a field like chaos theory and specifically the idea of iterative algorithms such as those used in the generation of fractal images. The key there is that it is very difficult for us to predict the state of a random system although knowing the initial state can often lead to the same patterns being generated. If you run a mandelbrot set generation for example, the formula that drives the generation of what appears to be infinitely complex is itself extremely simple. zn+1 = zn^ 2 + c. People often have difficulty looking at the complexity of life on Earth and believing that it is not the work of a designer. Look at the interleaved nature of life such as symbiotic organisms and imagine how that could have come about by random evolution. The key is that modern evolutionary theory is not the same as Darwinism. Modern thinking is that the evolution is not slow and gradual and random at all but quite a bit more complicated than that so I won't go in to it here in case of not doing it justice, but back to how complexity can arise from simplicity.
Perhaps a creator set the initial state of the universe and let it run, however, the idea of intricate centralised design of every system and organism in the universe is not a good strategy and has some parallels with the idea of central planning which doesn't work no matter how much effort or intelligence you throw at it. Most scientists won't accept that a creator is intimately involved in their daily existence so I can't agree with the use of the word 'Creation' in your timeline. I would replace it with the word 'Appearance' because that more closely represents the extent of our knowledge of those events. We think they occured, roughly at those times but that's all.