When you talk about better pictures what does that actually mean? If it means razor sharp images with fine contrast and hues perfectly exposed I would agree that the tool is what makes the photographer.

But are those better pictures? Have you ever looked at contemporary art? Is it a series of perfect pictures? No, it's often a streak of colour, a bunch of meaningless splotches, wildly distorted perspectives and so forth. Yet in these seemingly "terrible" pictures we get a feeling, we get an impression, we see something. That's what we call art and that's what we usually mean by "better" pictures, pictures that elicit a feeling, that send us a message.

Such pictures don't have to be perfect, in fact perfection often degrades the quality. Portraits for instance should not be razor sharp if they are to be meaningful. In the seventies there was a photographer who became famous for his images. He only used a polaroid SX-70 camera. From a "image quality" perspective they were terrible and yet people saw those images as art and he became very successful.

It doesn't take a professional high end SLR to capture a touching smile or expression, you don't need one to capture a mood or a feeling. What is necessary it to be able to see such things and to be able to capture them with whatever tool you have on hand.

Ok if the lighting is very dim and the contrast is terrible and so forth, a more expensive sophisticated tool will better ensure that you'll capture a perfectly exposed shot. But in the end it's still a magic smile or feeling that is the "better" picture and in the end it's still your ability to capture that fleeting moment that makes the difference between an award winning shot and a loser.

I think you'll understand this better as you become more sophisticated. Though I have two professional SLRs some of my best pictures have come from one or two of the point and shoot cameras I also have. It's not the tool that creates the magic, it's your eye and how you see the world, it's how you are able to respond to your world that does the trick. It's how you use the tool at hand.

Once you learn photography you will realise that this action becomes second nature-You would have to be very stupid indeed to try to capture fast sports with a point and shoot, or even architecture-these two facets of photography require specifically adequate equipment, But for all else you need to realise the limits of the equipment you have, and work within those limits, to get the very best from what you have-I get dslr quality images from my 14 megapixel 99 dollar point and shoot lumix camera that are comparable to my Nikon D200 at 100%- this shot was made at 800 ISO, too-I learned photography over 50 years ago , when the aim was to get a gamma 0.7 density black and white negative, to print on grade 2 bromide paper.

Yes.
specifically adequate equipment - a better camera.

And if you are implying that I haven't learnt photography, then you are barking up the wrong tree. I do a lot of stuff that is second nature to me.
And yes, work within those limits, .... or ... get a better camera.
I am sorry, I do not mean to be offensive but - I don't know why you put this photo there as an example Nekon, its not a good photo, its a snapshot and it looks overprocessed.
I started learning photography 30 years ago, and hopefully I will still be learning in another 30.
My most recent photo loaded to this site was taken with an iphone. I quite like how it turned out.