Hey folks, coming into the discussion a bit late, but wanted to share a couple thoughts and advice...

First and foremost, if you're looking for a camera, find something that YOU enjoy using! At any given price/feature level, just about anything you pick up with give you the same quality pictures, and 99% of people would never be able to tell what camera you used just by looking at the pictures.

The Canon vs. Nikon vs. whatever debates can go on forever, but the reality is, the BEST camera is the one that GETS USED, and the most important thing to make sure that happens is that YOU are comfortable using the camera. There's a wide range in any segment, of size, weight, feel, ergonomics, menus, operation... narrow your choice to two or three models in your price range and/or with the features you want, then GO TO A BRICK-AND-MORTAR STORE, and handle them all. Work with them, play with them, navigate the menus and settings and options... the camera that is fun and easy FOR YOU to use is far less likely to sit on a shelf collecting dust, where all the debating and minutiae in the world means absolutely nothing. Remember, nobody else can tell you what YOU will be most comfortable with!

Wanted to comment on this as well:

Quoting Snarkasm

Allow me to be a small voice of dissent and say that if you're trying to learn photography, perhaps starting on an SLR (even a starter SLR) may not be the best way to go. You can learn fundamentals and compose fantastic images on much cheaper equipment that won't limit you in the future if you do decide you want to pursue better equipment.

One thing that very, very few P&S cameras will do is allow manual focus (and those that do, it's often electronically-controlled which severely limits its effectiveness). If you really want to LEARN photography, IMHO, the ability to focus manually WILL be important to you, usually sooner rather than later. And the "real" view through the SLR's optical viewfinder simply can't be matched with a P&S's electronic viewfinder.

Also,

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think a starter SLR + lenses make a professional camera, which was why I mentioned it. I'd hate, as an example, to get a starter SLR, get really good with it, and then have to spend money on a new body when I've already spent this much on the starter. You're also not going to start buying L lenses for a starter SLR, so you'll get a few regular ol' lenses to shoot around with and learn, and then you'll have to sell those to buy more again.

Actually, going budget on the body and spending a bit more on a quality lens or two is a great way to start. DSLR bodies (and P&S cameras, for that matter) will become obsolete quickly, but a good lens will be a good lens for a very long time. As your skills improve and needs expand, you can upgrade your body, and not have to worry about replacing your lenses as well. Often, you can pick up a last-generation body for cheap as newer models are released, but the same rarely holds true with lenses.

And at the end of the experiment, if you decide photography isn't for you, a quality lens will retain its resale value a LOT better than a higher-level body and cheap lens. I recently sold off my Digital Rebel 300D with its kit lens, a battery grip, and a camera bag for a whopping $300... all that cost me over $1400 when I got it five years ago - now that's depreciation! Meantime, if I'd bought, say, a 70-210 f/2.8L lens back then, I could resell that today for very little depreciation, because it's still a great lens, and lens optical technology really hasn't changed that much in the past hundred years or so. All that's really changed with newer lenses is the addition of "extras" like IS and USM, but even without those "goodies", the older lens will still take stunning photos (assuming it hasn't been abused).