That's okay, your answer was pretty much what I was expecting. Unfortunately, saying that digital is inferior to analog because it inherently loses much of the original signal is like saying the earth is flat because otherwise people on the other side would fall off--it's theoretically and demonstrably untrue. Unless you're prepared to refute digital sampling theory, I would recommend that you avoid this approach.
Also, I think your Star Trek transporter analogy is flawed, as matter is generally seen as being composed of discrete particles anyway, while a waveform is continuous. I think a better analogy would be that of a camera filming an object in motion, with the number of frames per second analogous to the sampling frequency.
Personally, I do think that digital technology in general is superior to analog in terms of offering the best chance of accurately reproducing the original signal. However I also think that a legitimate case can be made that the current 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard may offer room for improvement.
My preference is for a recording/playback system that is as faithful to the original signal as possible. If others prefer a system that adds "warmth," that's fine too, but it's a different preference. In any case, I don't think anything is accomplished by "this technology sounds better than that technology"-type arguments.
