You think you didn't get an answer to your first question. Cosmology doesn't have all the answers but....
Your first question.

"So my first question is if matter can collapse to a point that seems to puncture a hole in space then such a relavant star creating this effect seems to contradict the big bang density , why should an ordinary star weighing less or having a lesser density than the primeval atom manage to create a blackhole yet the big bang did not."

This was my answer back on 1/29/01.

"The idea is there was no primevel atom but instead a portion of a quantum scalar field whose vacuum energy was not at a minmum. This is termed a false vacuum. The energy density was slightly less than critical and the total mass was ~ that of a garden pea. For this universe to exist, as we know it, its energy density had to be less than critical or it would have collapsed to a black hole instead of inflating. The classical big bang theory describes the evolution of the universe after the inflationary period. Here are 2 short articles on inflationary cosmology by the two guys who 'thunk' it up. Alan Guth and Andrei Linde. There are several versions Guth's, Linde's, Hawking's and Turok's, string cosmology, etc but they all have a quantum origin.
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth_contents.html
http://www.sciam.com/specialissues/0398cosmos/0398linde.html
Some interesting papers on string cosmolgy
http://www.to.infn.it/~gasperin/

Maybe you will tell Guth, Linde and Gasperini to 'kiss your rear end' also? What was that you said about not philandering with sorts who insult others in these forums? How do you not philander with yourself?