Yeah, but ... this utterly flunks the application Ockham's Razor. If one is going to assume that a book was written so early that its contents are thus prophetic, with no reason for that assumption other than it is said to be "scientific," I have some serious doubts about the results that will be obtained. Sorry, Alamo-Girl, I just don't see any wild implications to be drawn from Enoch. Not unless someone flat-out wants that result. But by nature, I'm a "show me" kinda guy. (I know, you're not surprised.)
Indeed, if an Enochian fragment is found and dated to 500 B.C. or earlier - I'll give you a heads up!
I have not yet looked for information on physical dating (e.g. carbon dating) on the parchments or the containers, but that's my next step.
I realize that the contextual points hold no sway to your view. Nevertheless, to me, it is significant that the manuscript from which the Qumran copies were made does not speak of Moses, the law or related Jewish traditions as being in existence, though it originated in Judea and that would be “second nature” to the residents.