Is scientific or Biblical theory more accurate in presenting evidence of the earth's origin?

The key to answering this question is to understand what we mean by accuracy and to realize that there are different types of truth. One type of truth is scientific, and deals with measurable empirical facts. Another type of truth is spiritual and deals with inward meanings. The Bible (and other religious texts) are not works of science, but religious works. To read it as a scientific work is in a sense to secularize it, confusing a religious document with a science textbook. 
A scientific account of the origin of the earth looks at information such as the geological record, the formation of other planets in our solar system, radioactive decay, and a wide range of astronomical data. As all of this evidence is empirical, it provides quite a reliable scientific record of the history of the universe. Because light travels at a fixed speed, as astronomers look at distant galaxies, they are actually seeing light that originated many billions of years ago.
The Biblical account was not intended as a scientific work. Instead, most theologians understand it as a spiritual narrative intended to reveal the relationship between God and humanity. As with most sacred tales that were originally transmitted orally, it presents this understanding in a narrative form. The point of Genesis is not, though, that it was intended as a science handbook, but rather that it is meant to convey a close and caring relationship between humanity and the divine.