It really depends on you and not the camera, though the size is something you will have to consider. If you plan to add lens in the long run, learn about photography, learn how to use manual controls, and do some post processing on each photo then I'd say the DSLR. The bad thing about the DSLR is that the kit lens will not be that much better indoors compared the G series cameras. Another problem is that you'd have a focal range of 28-72mm with a DSLR where the G10 has a focal range of 28-140mm. You can zoom twice as far with the G10, it's somewhat pocketable and can take very nice photos right out of the box.
I'm looking for a new digital camera, and to be honest anything could improve upon my 3.2mp Powershot A75.
I'd like access to full manual controls and preferably RAW mode. It must be $500 or less. I was originally looking at some entry-level DSLRs (almost all reputable brands, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Olympus seemed to have a camera kit available for roughly $500, though some were a year or two old).
However, it seems like I've got a choice between a truly top-of-the-line, well-reviewed, well-featured point-and-shoot and a cheaper-quality, low-featured DSLR. I'm also concerned that with a DSLR, it would be difficult to carry around and I'd ed up not taking as many photos.
So: is it worth it for the DSLR, considering I probably won't be buying new lenses anytime soon? (Although I do have a couple 40-yr.-old Pentax lenses).