The Earth does not need the moon to "spin it". Actually, tidal forces
by the moon act as a form of drag on the earth's rotation, as the moon
only orbits the earth once every 28 days. It's because of the Earth's
strong tidal action on the moon that the moon is now "locked" with one
side toward the earth, although it certainly didn't start out that
way.

Would the Earth be spinning now if it did not have one?

Yes.

The same should have applied to the Earth then if frictional forces of
the atmosphere were the only thing that causes these things, after all
it has been around 4.3 billions years since Earths creation.

The combined angular momentum of the earth and atmosphere cannot
change in the absence of an exchange with an external body like the
sun or the moon. Thus, friction by the atmosphere cannot have any
lasting effect on the rotational speed of the earth (though it does
have a seasonal effect).


Earth and Moon are a couplet pair that revolve around each other that
follow an average orbital path and not a planet that follows an
orbital path with a moon rotating around it.

This is true of EVERY planet with moons. It is the center of gravity
of the planet-moon system that obeys Keppler's laws. Since our moon
is proportionally quite large, the effect is more noticeable than
with, say, Jupiter and its moons.


Generally speaking, every planetary body comes into existence with
considerable rotation.

Why?

Because it would be an amazing coincidence if the local angular
momentum of the gases and dust from which a planet formed were exactly
zero. And whatever angular momentum is present is expressed as a
faster rotation when the material condenses into something solid.

We know that the Milky way is a rotating galaxy. It follows that even
the average angular momentum of the materials found at any particular
point in the galaxy is non-zero and systematically of one particular
sign.

Is this something to do with relativity

No.

and the warping of spacetime
as gases compress

No.

to solid objects over time? Or the changing permeability and
permitivity due to warping or what?

No. Just basic classical mechanics of the kind that even Newton
understood.


This is the frustrating thing about "debating" AGW with the
skeptics ... they're vehement in their "scientific" objections to its
reality while at the same time often displaying amazing gaps in their
own understanding of science.

I don't remember which side 'davee' is on, so I don't know whether the
above applies to him or not.

It most certainly applies to many of the folks are who are, as I write
this, loudly disparaging Gore's Nobel Prize. Rush Limbaugh chief
among them.